BIBLITEKA 
RADY 


>• 

'' 


Notable  )6ngltgh  trials 


NOTABLE  TRIALS  SERIES. 


Madeleine  Smith.     Edited  by  A.  Duncan  Smith, 
Advocate. 

Dr.  Pritchard.     Edited  by  William  Roughead. 

The  Stauntons.    Edited  by  J.  B.  Atlay,  Barrister- 
at -Law. 

Franz  Muller.     Edited  by  H.  B.  Irving. 

The  Annesley  Case.     Edited  by  Andrew  Lang. 

Lord  Lovat.     Edited  by  David  N.  Mackay. 

Captain    Porteous.      Edited    by    William 
Roughead. 

William  Palmer.     Edited  by  Geo.  H.  Knott, 
Barrister-at-Law. 

Mrs.  May  brick.      Edited  by  H.  B.  Irving. 
Dr.  Lamson.      Edited  by  H.   L.  Adam. 
Mary  Blandy.     Edited  by  William  Roughead. 

City  of  Glasgow  Bank  Directors.     Edited  by 
William  Wallace,  Advocate. 

Deacon  Brodie.  Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
James  Stewart.  Edited  by  David  N.  Mackay. 
A.  J.  Monson.  Edited  by  J.  W.  More,  Advocate. 
Oscar  Slater.  Edited  by  William  Roughead. 

Eugene    Marie    Chantrelle.       Edited    by    A. 
Duncan  Smith,  Advocate. 

The  Douglas  Cause.      Edited  by   A.   Francis 
Steuart,  Advocate. 

Mrs.  M*Lachlan.  Edited  by  William  Roughead. 
Eugene  Aram.  By  Eric  Watson,  Barrister-at-Law. 

J.  A.    Dickman.       Edited  by   S.   O.   Rowan- 
Hamilton,  Barrister-at-Law. 

The  Seddons.    Edited  by  Filson  Young. 
The  'Wainwrights.     Edited  by  H.  B.  Irving. 
Dr.  Crippen. 


Particulars  may  be  had  from  the  Publishers. 


The  Lord  Chief-Justice  of  England :  Baron  Reading  of  Earley. 

(As  Sir  Rufus  Isaacs,  K.C.V.O.,  K.C.,  M.P.,  Attorney-General  from 
1910  to  1913.) 


BABY  NAr;ODOWEJ 
R.P. 

Trial  of 


The    Seddons 


EDITED    BY 

Filson   Young 


EDINBURGH    AND    LONDON 

WILLIAM    HODGE    &    COMPANY 


PRINTED  BY 

WILLIAM  HODGE  AND  COMPANY 

GLASGOW  AND  EDINBDRGH 

1914 


TO 

EDWARD  MARSHALL  HALL,  K.C.,  M.P. 


PREFACE. 

VERT  few  people  can  hear  an  important  criminal  trial.  The  ordinary  Court 
of  law  has  accommodation  for  only  a  small  audience,  and  few  even  of  those 
whose  interest  is  professional  have  the  time  to  devote  nine  or  ten  conse- 
cutive days  to  the  hearing  of  a  single  case.  Yet  the  things  that  take 
place  in  these  Courts  are  done  in  the  name  of  every  citizen,  and  when  the 
judge  and  jury  deprive  a  man  of  liberty  or  life,  they  do  it  on  our  behalf 
and  with  our  authority.  It  is  therefore  of  moment  that  the  public  should 
have  the  means  of  studying  at  leisure,  in  such  carefully  prepared  records 
as  those  of  the  series  in  which  this  volume  appears,  the  working  of  this 
immensely  important  machine  to  which  people's  lives  and  liberties  are 
entrusted.  And  I  cannot  imagine  any  more  interesting  exercise  in  the 
judicial  faculties  for  a  thoughtful  and  reflective  person  than  to  read  the 
evidence  carefully  and  attentively,  away  from  the  personal  distractions  of 
the  Court,  where  he  can  concentrate  his  mind  on  its  significance  sentence 
by  sentence,  and  attempt  to  come  to  a  calm  judgment.  One  sees,  in  such 
a  record,  human  nature  laid  bare;  one  follows,  link  by  link,  the  chain 
composed  of  causes  followed  by  their  surprising  effects;  and  one  observes, 
far  from  the  emotional  storm  that  inspired  the  crime,  the  cold  and  durable 
nature  of  a  man's  acts  when  all  the  passion  has  died  out  of  them  and  the 
tale  is  told  and  the  reckoning  to  be  paid.  But  the  study  must  be  made 
with  patience  and  restraint.  The  tendency  of  the  ordinary  amateur  in 
these  matters  is  to  make  up  his  mind  quite  early  in  the  case  (it  is  what 
I  am  convinced  nearly  all  jurymen  do),  and  to  throw  down  the  book 
when  the  evidence  has  been  half  read,  saying,  "  I  am  sure  he  did  it "  or  "  I 
am  sure  he  is  innocent,"  as  the  case  may  be.  I  need  not  say  that  a  record 
like  that  which  I  am  presenting  in  the  following  pages  will  be  both  useless 
and  uninteresting  if  it  is  treated  in  this  manner,  but  that  if  it  be  patiently 
read  to  the  end  it  will  not  only  engage  the  reader's  curiosity  and  afford  him 
a  very  considerable  mental  exercise,  but  inspire  some  sober  reflections  on 
the  present-day  administration  of  the  criminal  law. 


viii  PREFACE. 

I  wish  to  record  my  thanks  to  the  Lord  Chief-Justice,  who,  as  Attorney- 
General  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  kindly  placed  at  my  disposal  certain  official 
records  which  would  not  otherwise  have  been  available  to  me ;  to  Sir 
Charles  Darling  for  courtesies  which  he  extended  to  me  in  regard  to  the 
proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal;  to  Mr.  E.  Marshall 
Hall,  K.C.,  M.P.,  for  not  only  giving  me  access  to  the  whole  material  of  the 
case  in  his  possession,  but  for  much  friendly  assistance  and  advice;  and  to 
Mr.  T.  Walter  Saint,  Seddon's  solicitor,  who  spared  time  out  of  some  very 
busy  days  to  come  and  give  me  the  benefit  of  his  personal  knowledge 
and  information,  and  who  also  afforded  me  the  use  of  many  valuable 
documents.  FILSON  YOUNG. 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction, 

Table  of  Dates, 

The  Trial— 

FIRST  DAY — MONDAY,  4iH  MARCH,  1912. 

The  Attorney-General's  Opening  Speech  for  the  Prosecution, 
Evidence  for  the  Prosecution. 


Percy  Attersall,       -        -        -        -  17 

Robert  Ernest  Hook,      -         -         -  17 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe,        -         -  30 

Mrs.  Julia  Hannah  Vonderahe,      -  39 

Mrs.  Amelia  Blanche  Vonderahe,  -  41 


Henry  Edward  Grove,    - 
William  Dell, 
Mrs.  Eleanor  Francis  Dell, 
Stanley  George  Dell, 


PAGE 

xiii 
xxix 


44 
44 
44 
44 


SECOND  DAY — TUESDAY,  STH  MARCH,  1912. 
Evidence  for  the  Prosecution  (continued). 


Cecil  Vane  Dunstan,  45 

William  Webb,  -      46 

Arthur  Astle,          .  ...      46 

Arthur  Douglas  Laing,  -        -          47-50 

Edwin  Russell,        -  47 

Henry  William  Denny  Knight,       -      48 

John  Charles  Pepper,  49 


Ernest  Grant,  50 

Mrs.  Annie  Henderson,  58 

Mrs.  Leah  Jeffreys,  58 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater,  -      58 
William  Seddon,     ....      66 

Mrs.  Emily  Amy  Longley,      -  -       68 

Harry  Carl  Taylor,                  -  -      68 


THIRD  DAY— WEDNESDAY,  6TH  MARCH,  1912. 
Evidence  for  the  Prosecution  (continued). 


John  Charles  Arthur  Smith,  -        -      72 

Alfred  Hartwell,  -      74 

Mrs.  E.  A.  Longley,  75 

Ernest  Victor  Rowland,  -        -       76 

Charles  James  Crasfield,  -        -      76 

Clara  May  Cooper,  76 

Thomas  Wright,  78 

William  Nodes,       -        -  -        -      78 


Walter  Thorley,  -  -  -  80-81 
Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater,  -  81 
Robert  John  Price,  87 

Dr.  John  Frederick  Paul,  -  87-98 
Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn,  89 

Alfred  King, 98 

William  Alexander  Fraser,  -  -  98 
Alfred  Ward, 98 


FOURTH  DAY,  THURSDAY,  ?TH  MARCH,  1912. 

Evidence  for  the  Prosecution  (continued). 


Charles  Cooper,  ....  101 
William  Hayman,  -  ...  101 
Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury,  -  101 


Mavis  Wilson,  -  -  -  -  108 
Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn,  -  -  108 
Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox,  -  -  108 


FIFTH  DAY,  FRIDAY,  STH  MARCH,  1912. 


Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox, 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall's  Opening  Speech  for  the  Defence, 


133 
133 


Evidence  for  the  Defence. 


Sydney  Arthur  Naylor,  - 
William  John  Wilson,    - 


149-150 
-     149 


Frederick  Henry  Seddon, 


150 


x  CONTENTS. 

SIXTH  DAY,  SATURDAY,  QTH  MARCH,  1912. 

Evidence  for  the  Defence  (continued). 

MM 

Frederick  Henry  Seddon,         -        -  165 

SEVENTH  DAY,  MONDAY,  HTH  MARCH,  1912. 
Evidence  for  the  Defence  (continued). 

Thomas  Creek,  -        -    231 

Mrs.  Margaret  Ann  Seddon,  -        -    232 


Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  -  -  195 
Frank  Edward  Whiting,  -  -  231 
Albert  Sidney  Wainwright,  -  -  231 


EIGHTH  DAY,  TUESDAY,  12rn  MARCH,  1912. 

Evidence  for  the  Defence  (continued). 


Mrs.  Margaret  Ann  Seddon,  -         -  236 

John  Arthur  Francis,      -  -  269 

Ernest  Burton  Poole,       -  -         -  270 

Mary  Chater, ...  -  270 


Margaret  Seddon,  ....  270 
Mrs.  Alice  Rutt,  -  -  -  -  274 
Mrs.  Longley,  ....  275 


Further  Proof  for  the  Prosecution. 
Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox,  276 

NINTH  DAY,  WEDNESDAY,  13iH  MARCH,  1912. 

Evidence  for  the  Defence  (continued). 
John  Arthur  Francis,      -        -        -     278      |      Mrs.  Margaret  Ann  Seddon,  -         -     278 

Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 
Mr.  Marshall  Hall,    -  -        .  -279 

Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  Mrs.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Rentoul,     -  -    332 

» 

The  Attorney-General's  Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

The  Attorney-General,      -        -  -    338 

TENTH  DAY,  THURSDAY,  14TH  MARCH,  1912. 

The  Attorney-General,      -        -  351 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up,  -                                                              -    .    -  380 

Verdict,     ....  -  407 

Sentence,  -  -  410 

APPENDICES, 412 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS. 

The  Lord  Chief- Justice  of  England  :  Baron  Reading  of  Barley,  -  Frontispiece 

The  Seddons  in  the  Dock  at  the  Old  Bailey, facing  page    16 

Mr.  E.  Marshall  Hall,  K.C.,  M.P.,       -  „           132 

Frederick  Henry  Seddon, ,,           150 

Members  of  the  Seddon  Family, ,,           232 

Eliza  Mary  Barrow, ,,           276 

Mr.  Gervais  Rentoul, ,,           332 

Facsimile  letter  of  F.  H.  Seddon,  written  in  the  luncheon  interval 
just  before  the  dismissal  of  his  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Criminal 

Appeal, „           380 


TRIAL  OF  THE  SEDDONS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

r  I  ^HE  great  importance  of  the  Seddon  case  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  focusses 
I  in  itself  a  number  of  changes  which  have  gradually  been  developing 
in  the  administration  of  the  criminal  law;  and  it  is  likely  to  be 
epoch-marking  for  this  and  various  other  reasons.  First  of  all  it  will 
stand  as  a  classical  example  of  the  working  of  the  Prisoners'  Evidence  Act 
in  capital  cases.  If  Seddon  had  not  given  evidence  himself  the  Crown 
would  have  failed  to  prove  a  case  sufficient  to  secure  a  verdict  of  wilful 
murder  against  him,  and  without  his  evidence  few  jurymen  would  have 
dared  to  bring  in  a  verdict  of  guilty.  It  was  not  that  his  evidence  revealed 
any  facts  which  really  proved  the  case  against  him,  but  the  prejudice, 
already  large,  was  greatly  increased  by  his  cleverness  and  cool  demeanour. 
No  doubt  if  he  had  been  confused  and  emotional,  that  also  would  have 
told  against  him.  The  case  is  remarkable  for  several  other  reasons.  The 
evidence,  entirely  circumstantial,  and  concerned  almost  wholly  with  motive 
and  opportunity,  consisted  of  a  chain  of  gossamer  links  joined  together 
with  immense  ingenuity,  and  it  was  the  length  of  this  chain  rather  than 
its  strength  which  enabled  the  prosecution  to  bind  it  round  the  prisoner. 
There  is  further  no  precedent  capital  case  of  comparable  gravity  in  which 
two  persons  are  indicted  for  the  same  offence,  in  which  the  same  evidence 
is  offered  against  either  or  both  of  them,  and  in  which  the  jury  are  given 
their  choice  of  four  verdicts.  All  the  evidence  in  the  Seddon  case  was 
directed  against  both  him  and  his  wife;  in  fact,  the  evidence  upon  which 
Seddon  was  convicted  pressed  just  as  hardly,  if  not  more  hardly,  upon 
her;  but  the  jury  convicted  him  and  acquitted  her.  Further,  the  case 
illustrates  a  certain  change  which  seems  to  have  come  over  the  administra- 
tion of  the  English  criminal  law,  a  change  relating  to  the  ancient  maxim 
that  "  the  accused  is  presumed  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty."  That 
has  been  a  solid  tradition  of  English  criminal  justice.  The  whole  law  has 
been  framed  on  the  assumption  that  this  first  principle  will  be  observed 
in  its  administration;  but  nowadays,  in  the  words  of  an  eminent  jurist 
commenting  on  this  case  at  the  time,  "  we  hear  judges  talking  of  infer- 
ences, of  presumptions,  of  the  failure  of  the  accused  to  account  for  his 
actions  or  omissions,  while  the  necessity  for  the  Crown  establishing  an 
indubitable  chain  of  proof  by  testimony  is  ignored."  And  to  one  who 
heard  the  whole  of  this  trial,  it  appeared  as  if  in  fact  Seddon  was  convicted 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

not  because  the  Crown  succeeded  in  proving  his  guilt,  but  because  he  failed 
to  prove  his  innocence. 

Another  point  which  makes  the  case  remarkable  is  the  absence  of  all 
evidence  as  to  the  handling  by  Seddon  of  arsenic  at  any  time.  It  is 
usually  regarded  as  necessary  for  conviction  in  a  murder  case  either  to  trace 
the  weapon  to  the  prisoner's  hand,  or,  in  the  case  of  poison,  if  the  actual 
poison  cannot  be  traced,  at  least  to  prove  expert  knowledge  on  the  part 
of  the  accused  as  to  the  method  of  administration  and  effect  of  the  poison 
employed.  In  this  case  it  was  not  proved  that  Seddon  administered 
or  even  handled  any  arsenic,  that  he  had  any  knowledge  or  source  of 
information  as  to  its  toxic  effects,  or  that  his  occupation  or  education  was 
of  a  kind  likely  to  make  the  presumption  that  he  had  such  information  a 
reasonable  one. 

A  further  distinguishing  feature  of  the  case  was  the  use  made  of  the 
famous  Marsh  test,  which  is  the  classical  method  of  discovering  the  presence 
of  arsenic  when  it  exists  in  a  quantity  too  small  to  be  revealed  by  a  simple 
analysis.  This  has  hitherto  been  used  almost  exclusively  as  a  qualitative 
test,  as  the  presence  of  arsenic  is  only  revealed  by  the  slightest  deposit  on 
a  mirror.  It  has  never  before,  I  think,  been  sought  to  base  on  this  almost 
invisible  mark  any  calculations  as  to  quantity.  Yet  in  the  Seddon  case 
it  was  of  such  vital  importance  to  the  prosecution  to  prove  that  there  must 
have  been  at  least  two  grains  in  the  body  at  the  time  of  death  that  the 
Marsh  mirrors  were  used  as  a  quantitative  test.  On  reference  to  the 
evidence,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  certain  portions  of  the  viscera  which  were 
analysed  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  quantity  of  arsenic 
which  must  have  been  present  in  the  material  to  use  a  multiplying  factor 
of  as  much  as  two  thousand.  The  margin  of  possible  error  therefore  was 
enormous,  and  it  is  typical  of  the  difficulties  to  which  the  prosecution 
were  put  in  this  case  that  so  much  of  their  case  was  obliged  to  rest  on 
induction  and  deduction.  Dr.  Willcox,  who  conducted  these  experiments, 
is  a  man  not  only  of  the  highest  ability  in  his  profession,  but  also  of  the 
most  exact  and  scrupulous  fairness,  and  one  may  assume  that  in  this  case 
the  results  of  his  experiments  were  understated  rather  than  overstated. 
Nevertheless,  such  a  method  of  arriving  at  a  small  fact  on  which  a  man's 
life  depends  might  easily  in  less  expert  hands,  and  conducted  with  less 
scrupulous  conscientiousness,  have  produced  errors  of  the  most  dangerous 
kind.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  such  methods  should  or  should  not 
be  relied  upon  as  a  means  of  bringing  criminals  to  justice,  but  merely  to 
draw  attention  to  this  further  peculiarity  which  distinguishes  the  Seddon 
case  from  other  famous  poison  cases. 

Again,  comments  were  made  upon  the  way  in  which  the  police  con- 
ducted the  preliminary  investigations,  more  especially  with  regard  to  the 


Introduction. 

identification  of  Maggie  Seddon  by  the  chemist  Thorley  (which  \vas  a  vital 
point  in  their  case),  and  of  the  manner,  happily  more  characteristic  of 
French  than  of  English  procedure,  in  which  they  took  her  by  herself  into 
the  gaoler's  room  at  the  Police  Court,  and  entrapped  her  into  making  a 
false  statement  in  order  that  her  evidence  for  the  defence,  when  she  came 
to  give  it,  should  be  discredited.  Finally,  it  was  felt  pretty  widely  at  the 
time  of  the  trial  that  the  Attorney-General  had  pressed  the  case  against 
Seddon  with  great  severity,  while  dealing  rather  leniently  with  his  wife. 
Scrupulously  fair  as  was  Sir  Rufus  Isaacs's  conduct  of  the  case,  it 
differed  more  in  omission  than  in  commission  from  what  hitherto  has 
been  regarded  as  the  best  tradition  of  his  office.  In  his  cold  and  remorseless 
methods  there  was  more  of  the  vengeance  of  a  destroying  angel  than  the 
scrupulous  moderation  of  a  high  officer  of  the  Crown  laying  before  a  jury 
facts  on  the  interpretation  of  which  two  lives  depended.  There  is,  of  course, 
a  reply  to  this  criticism  in  the  fact  that  the  Attorney- General  had  to  bring 
home  the  crime  to  a  cool  and  clever  man,  and  in  circumstances  of  great 
mystery  and  obscurity;  and  his  remorselessly  logical  treatment  of  facts 
and  inferences  would  no  doubt  have  excited  less  comment  if  it  had  not 
proved  so  deadly.  Seddon  himself  was  a  person  who  excited  no  sympathy 
whatsoever.  He  was  as  cold  and  hard  as  a  paving  stone,  and  had  such 
a  jaunty  and  overweening  confidence  in  his  sharpness  and  cleverness  that, 
had  the  issue  been  less  grave,  it  would  have  been  only  human  to  wish 
to  triumph  over  him  at  any  cost.  He  was  obviously  capable  of  the  crime 
with  which  he  was  charged.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  feel  morally  convinced 
that  a  man  is  a  scoundrel  and  a  murderer  and  another  to  bring  it  home  to 
him  by  a  strict  and  scrupulous  use  of  the  means  which  the  law  permits. 
The  feeling  excited  in  the  legal  world  by  the  trial  as  a  whole  was  a  mixture 
of  admiration  and  misgiving — admiration  for  the  ability  and  dignity  with 
which  it  was  conducted,  and  misgiving  lest  the  margin  of  judicial  safety 
implied  in  the  presumption  of  innocence  might  not  have  been  dangerously 
narrowed. 


But  if  this  trial  has  a  profound  and  far-reaching  legal  significance 
which  makes  it  worthy  of  the  study  and  consideration  of  the  professional 
lawyer,  it  is  also  rich  in  that  human  interest  which  makes  an  appeal  to 
every  citizen  who  is  intelligent  enough  to  care  for  exact  knowledge  of  the 
social  conditions  which  surround  him.  For  here  the  curtain  is  abruptly 
drawn  up  on  a  scene  of  life  in  the  crowded  London  of  our  day;  strong 
limelight  shines  upon  the  characters;  people  of  a  kind  who  would  be 
obscure  and  totally  unknown  to  the  ordinary  public  are  suddenly  revealed 
in  their  habits  as  they  lived ;  and  the  most  intimate  details  of  their  life  are 
made  known  to  us.  Their  dealings  with  each  other,  their  attitude  towards 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

life,  their  method  and  conduct  of  daily  existence  both  among  themselves 
and  as  between  themselves  and  the  world,  are  revealed  with  a  fulness  of 
detail  and  an  exactness  of  circumstance  unknown  in  any  other  kind  of 
historical  record.  And  to  read  the  trial,  not  merely  as  a  legal  problem,  but 
as  a  piece  of  human  history  of  our  own  place  and  time,  it  is  necessary 
to  form  a  mental  picture  of  the  characters,  not  as  they  appear  in  the  false 
proportions  of  a  legal  inquiry,  but  as  that  inquiry  reveals  them  in  the 
conditions  of  their  daily  life.  Imagine,  then,  a  household  living  in  one  of 
those  prosperous  and  seemingly  limitless  residential  districts  that  extend 
far  to  the  north  of  London  proper.  Tollington  Park  is  a  road  having 
*  pretensions  to  more  than  mere  respectability.  Its  houses  suggest  not  what 
houses  of  similar  capacity  in  other  districts  so  often  suggest,  a  decayed  and 
fallen  gentility,  but  rather  a  crescent  and  gratified  prosperity.  You  feel 
that  the  people  who  live  there  have  come  not  from  a  better  neighbourhood, 
but  from  one  not  so  good,  and  that  they  are  proud  to  live  in  Tollington 
Park.  In  one  of  these  houses,  No.  63,  lived,  in  the  year  1910,  Frederick 
Henry  Seddon,  an  insurance  superintendent  of  forty  years  of  age;  his 
wife,  Margaret,  aged  thirty-seven ;  his  father,  and  a  family  of  five  children. 
The  house  has  a  bow  window  in  the  basement  and  the  ground  floor,  three 
•windows  in  each  of  the  two  upper  floors,  a  strip  of  greenery  called  a  garden, 
and  a  conservatory  behind.  At  the  time  that  Seddon  moved  into  it  he 
was  a  man  obviously  on  the  up  grade.  In  his  business  as  district  superin- 
tendent of  an  insurance  company  he  had  moved  from  one  position  to 
another,  and  his  moves  were  always  marked  with  an  increase  of  responsi- 
bility and  income.  As  I  read  him,  he  was  a  hard-headed  Lancashire  man, 
who  had  early,  in  that  industrial  battlefield  of  the  north,  learned  the  value 
of  money  in  the  fight  for  existence;  he  was  exact  and  exacting,  thrifty, 
hard,  and  saving.  He  was  conceited,  but  had  no  false  sense  of  dignity, 
and  seemed  to  be  singularly  free  from  the  snobbish  pursuit  of  appearance 
which  is  so  often  a  weakness  of  his  class.  He  was  not  ashamed  of  turning 
his  hand  to  anything  in  the  way  of  business  by  which  money  could  be  made. 
Whether  it  took  the  form  of  petty  commission  on  this  and  that,  or  the 
owning  and  management  of  humble  house  property,  or  his  own  legitimate 
business,  superintending  a  large  number  of  petty  insurance  transactions,  he 
applied  himself  with  zeal  to  the  business  in  hand.  He  appears  to  have  been 
a  man  who  wished  to  turn  if  possible  every  transaction  of  his  daily  life  into 
a  means  of  making  money;  pleasure  meant  singularly  little  to  him;  so  far  as 
one  knows,  his  chief  passion  was  the  passion  to  be  the  possessor  of  property. 
In  the  strong  light  in  which  he  stood  throughout  his  trial  this  trait  invari- 
ably came  out.  Of  all  the  things  that  he  said,  the  only  phrases  that  can  be 
called  characteristic,  that  belong  to  and  illuminate  his  individuality,  were 
utterances  about  business  and  property.  Echoes  of  these  utterances  remain 


Introduction, 

in  one's  memory,  giving  the  character  of  the  man — "  I  am  always  open  to 
buy  property  at  a  price,"  "  With  this  money  and  other  money  that  I  am 
possessed  of  (tapping  a  bag  of  gold)  I  can  pay  for  this  house,"  "  This  house 
I  live  in,  fourteen  rooms,  is  my  own,  and  I  have  seventeen  other  properties." 
The  only  joke  that  is  attributed  to  him  is  a  joke  about  money  when, 
putting  a  bag  of  gold  on  the  table  in  the  presence  of  one  of  his  assistants, 
he  said,  "  Here,  Smith,  here's  your  wages,"  and  the  assistant  answered,  "  I 
wish  you  meant  it,  Mr.  Seddon."  He  was  one  of  those  people  for  whom 
the  word  business  has  an  almost  sacred  significance,  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  money  was  his  god.  No  transaction  was  too  great  or  too  small 
for  him,  provided  there  was  profit  in  it — whether  it  was  buying  £1600 
worth  of  property,  or  (although  he  was  a  very  prosperous  man  for  his 
walk  in  life)  exacting  the  sum  of  6s.  each  from  his  two  young  sons  for  their 
weekly  board,  or  buying  and  selling  old  clothes,  or  going  and  making 
a  row  at  a  music  hall  where  he  alleged,  but  of  course  could  not  prove,  that 
he  had  been  given  change  for  a  florin  instead  of  half  a  crown  At  the  time 
the  curtain  rises  on  this  drama,  then,  Seddon  was  living  in  this  house  with 
his  wife  and  family  of  five  children.  It  was  a  better  house  than  he  thought 
necessary  for  his  habitation,  but  he  had  purchased  it  as  a  speculation,  and 
rather  than  let  it  stand  vacant  lived  in  it  himself,  trusting,  according  to 
his  habit,  to  turn  this  seeming  extravagance  to  some  financial  profit.  Thus 
he  got  from  the  insurance  company  that  employed  him  a  sum  of  5s.  a  week 
as  rent  for  the  room  which  he  used  as  an  office,  and  he  let  the  top  floor 
unfurnished  as  a  lodging  for  12s.  6d.  a  week.  By  putting  up  a  partition 
in  one  of  the  rooms  he  crowded  six  of  his  household,  including  his  old 
father  and  the  servant,  into  it,  and  thus  had  the  use  of  the  house  while 
taking  in  money  within  half  a  crown  a  week  of  its  rental  value. 

It  is  said  of  him  that,  with  regard  to  women,  he  abused  his  position 
as  an  insurance  superintendent  with  constant  access  to  houses  during  the 
absence  of  the  husband;  also  that  during  the  year  1911  he  had,  although 
formerly  a  teetotaler,  acquired  the  habit  of  drinking;  but  these  accusations 
did  not  come  out  in  the  course  of  the  trial.  He  had  formerly  been  a  local 
preacher,  and  a  prop  of  chapel  communities;  but  how  much  that  may 
have  had  to  do  with  his  business  interests  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

By  merely  confining  one's  self  to  the  facts  of  the  life  of  this  household 
as  revealed  in  this  trial,  it  is  possible  to  form  a  very  definite  picture  of 
them;  and,  although  so  ordinary  in  its  circumstances,  it  was  really  no 
ordinary  household.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  woman  Miss  Barrow, 
who  came  to  lodge  with  them,  was  a  very  strange  person  indeed.  She  was 
ignorant  with  the  dense  ignorance  of  her  class,  suspicious,  selfish,  and,  in 
a  squalid  sort  of  way,  self-indulgent.  At  the  time  of  this  story  she  was 
forty-nine  years  old,  and,  having  quarrelled  with  all  her  other  friends, 

xvii 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

lodged  with  the  Seddons  alone,  save  for  the  companionship  of  a  little 
orphan  boy  named  Ernie  Grant.  She  had  quarrelled  with  and  spat  at  her 
former  landlords.  She  dressed  badly,  and  was  parsimonious  in  her  habits. 
She  had  formerly  been  given  to  alcoholic  indulgence,  and,  although  there 
is  no  evidence  that  at  the  time  under  consideration  this  habit  had  con- 
tinued, the  probability  is  that  she  was  not  free  from  it.  And  it  was  a 
strange  circumstance  which  brought  together  by  mere  chance  these  two 
people  who  had  one  passion  in  common — the  passion  for  gold.  Miss  Barrow, 
when  she  came  to  the  Seddons,  was  alleged  to  have  in  her  possession  a 
considerable  sum  in  gold ;  there  is  no  trustworthy  evidence  what  the  amount 
was.  She  was  also  the  owner  of  £1600  invested  in  India  stock,  and  of  the 
lease  of  a  public-house  called  the  Buck's  Head,  and  a  barber's  shop  adjoin- 
ing. She  paid  12s.  6d.  a  week  to  Seddon  for  her  rooms,  and  7s.  to  Seddon's 
daughter  Maggie  for  attending  upon  her,  and  bought  her  own  food;  her 
income  was  thus  far  in  excess  of  her  expenditure.  As  I  have  said,  she  had 
a  passion  for  gold,  not  merely  for  money,  but  for  gold  coin.  She  mistrusted 
bank  notes,  and  when  she  received  one  would  generally  get  it  changed  into 
gold.  When,  as  a  result  of  her  having  parted  with  her  leasehold  property 
and  stock  to  Seddon  in  return  for  an  annuity  to  be  paid  by  him,  she  was  in 
the  habit  of  receiving  £10  monthly  from  him,  she  took  it  in  sovereigns. 
And,  further,  when  in  an  accession  of  mistrust  of  savings  banks  she  drew 
a  sum  of  £216  which  she  had  on  deposit  at  the  Finsbury  and  City  of  London 
Savings  Bank,  she  took  the  remarkable  course  of  having  it  paid  in  gold — 
two  bags  of  £100  each  and  £16  in  loose  sovereigns.  Further,  when 
remonstrated  with  by  Seddon  for  having  so  much  gold  in  the  house,  she 
was  angry,  and  uttered  the  curious  remark,  "  I  know  what  to  do  with  it." 
For  the  rest,  although  she  had  the  run  of  the  Seddon's  house,  she  seemed 
to  have  chosen  as  a  recreation  to  spend  her  time  chatting  in  the  kitchen 
with  the  charwoman  and  the  general  servant.  When  she  became  ill,  and 
her  illness  was  accompanied  by  circumstances  of  an  offensive  nature,  she 
insisted  on  having  the  little  boy  Ernie  Grant  to  sleep  with  her  in  her  bed; 
and  altogether  seems  to  have  been  a  woman  of  unpleasing,  not  to  say 
squalid,  habits. 

Seddon  also,  as  I  have  said,  had  his  passion  for  gold.  He  had  two  safes 
in  his  house,  one  in  his  bedroom  and  one  in  the  office  in  the  basement,  and 
seems  to  have  been  for  ever  carrying  about  gold  from  one  to  the  other, 
and  casting  up  his  accounts,  and  taking  loose  sovereigns  out  of  one  bag 
to  make  up  a  sum  in  another,  and  generally  fingering  his  money  in  the 
accepted  manner  of  the  miser.  His  wife,  as  she  appeared  to  those  who  saw 
her  at  the  trial,  is  a  somewhat  more  inscrutable  character.  A  woman  with 
some  pretensions  to  good  looks,  dressed  with  some  taste,  apparently  gentle, 
and  rather  weak  in  character,  she  had  been  doing  practically  the  whole  of 


Introduction. 

the  lighter  household  work  of  this  fourteen-roomed  residence,  living,  in 
short,  the  life  of  a  domestic  drudge.  It  was  obvious  from  the  evidence, 
and  as  a  matter  of  knowledge  outside  the  case,  that  she  and  Seddon  were 
not  on  particularly  good  terms;  it  was  obvious  that  every  one  in  his 
household  was  frightened  of  him,  and  that  he  was  a  hard  and  tyrannous 
man.  Business,  and  especially  Mr.  Seddon's  business,  came  first  in  that 
house,  and  every  one  had  to  make  way  for  it.  Looking  at  his  wife  as 
she  gave  evidence,  it  seemed  humanly  incredible  that  he  would  trust  her 
with  any  matter  of  importance  outside  the  kitchen,  and,  in  fact,  I  am 
convinced  that  he  did  not.  They  stood  by  one  another  loyally  throughout 
the  trial,  however,  and  only  once  did  Mrs.  Seddon  unconsciously  reveal  the 
attitude  in  which  they  stood  to  one  another,  when  to  the  question  as  to 
why  she  did  not  tell  him  something,  she  answered,  "  He  never  used  to  take 
any  notice  when  I  said  anything  to  him;  he  always  had  other  things  to 
think  of."  And,  again,  "  I  did  not  tell  my  husband  everything  I  done ; 
he  never  told  me  everything." 

I  do  not  propose  to  tell  here  the  story  which  will  be  found  unfolded 
both  in  the  opening  speeches  of  counsel  and  in  the  trial  itself.  It  is  enough 
to  say  that  Miss  Barrow  lived  for  fourteen  months,  from  July,  1910,  to 
September,  1911,  at  63  Tollington  Park  with  the  Seddons;  that  in  the 
course  of  that  year  she  made  over  to  Seddon  £1600  of  India  stock  in 
return  for  an  annuity  of  £103  4s.  per  annum,  and  the  leasehold  of  a  public- 
house  known  as  the  Buck's  Head  in  Camden  Town,  with  a  barber's  shop 
adjoining  it,  in  return  for  a  further  annuity  of  £52  per  annum.  During 
the  same  period  thirty-three  £5  notes,  known  to  have  been  paid  to  Miss 
Barrow,  were  traced  to  the  possession  of  either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Seddon.  On 
the  1st  of  September,  1911,  Miss  Barrow  was  taken  ill  with  what  was 
regarded  as  epidemic  diarrhoea,  and  died  about  six  in  the  morning  of  the 
14th  of  September,  having  been  attended  throughout  by  Dr.  Sworn,  of 
Highbury  Crescent,  who  certified  the  death  to  be  due  to  epidemic  diarrhoea 
and  exhaustion.  The  body  of  Miss  Barrow,  owing  to  the  surrounding 
conditions,  was  removed  to  the  undertaker's  mortuary,  and  was  buried  at 
Islington  Cemetery,  East  Finchley,  on  the  following  Saturday. 

A  few  streets  away  from  the  Seddons  lived  a  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Vonderahe, 
cousins  of  Miss  Barrow's,  with  whom  she  had  lived  before  she  went  to 
lodge  with  the  Seddons.  They  did  not  hear  of  the  death  till  after  the 
funeral,  and  naturally  felt  surprised  at  not  having  been  advised  of  it 
before.  When  they  went  to  see  Seddon  he  told  them  that  he  had  written 
them  a  letter  on  the  day  of  Miss  Barrow's  death,  of  which  he  had  kept  a 
carbon  copy;  but  they  had  never  received  any  such  letter.  They  naturally 
wanted  to  know  what  had  become  of  Miss  Barrow's  property,  and  of  the 
sum  in  gold  and  notes  which  she  was  known  to  have  had  in  her  possession; 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

but  Seddon  explained  that  she  had  parted  -with  her  property  for  an  annuity, 
and  that,  although  they  had  searched  everywhere,  they  had  found  nothing 
in  her  possession  except  a  sum  of  about  £10  in  loose  gold.  From  this  fact, 
and  a  host  of  other  small  facts  which  will  appear  in  the  narrative,  suspicion 
was  gradually  aroused.  On  the  15th  of  November  Miss  Barrow's  body  was 
exhumed  by  a  coroner's  order,  and  examined  by  Dr.  Spilsbury  in  the 
presence  of  Dr.  Willcox  at  the  Finchley  mortuary.  Certain  organs  were 
removed  for  further  examination  and  analysis.  Dr.  Spilsbury  in  his 
evidence  said,  "  I  found  no  disease  in  any  of  the  organs  sufficient  to  account 
for  death,  except  in  the  stomach  and  intestines.  In  the  intestines  I  found 
a  little  reddening  of  the  inner  surface  in  the  upper  part.  .  .  .  The 
body  was  remarkably  well  preserved,  both  externally  and  internally.  This 
would  suggest  that  death  was  due  to  some  poison  having  a  preservative 
effect,  or  to  the  presence  of  some  preserving  agent.  I  think  the  arsenic 
that  Dr.  Willcox  says  he  found  would  account  for  the  preservation  of  the 
body.  .  .  .  The  reddening  .  .  .  was  evidence  of  inflammation.  I 
don't  think  there  is  anything  to  distinguish  this  from  natural  gastro- 
enteritis. The  healthy  appearance  of  all  the  organs,  except  the  stomach 
and  intestines,  would  be  consistent  with  death  from  natural  gastro-enteritis." 

On  the  23rd  of  November  an  inquest  on  the  body  was  held,  at  which 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  both  gave  evidence.  The  inquest  was  adjourned. 
On  the  29th  of  November  Dr.  Willcox  made  a  further  examination  of  the 
body,  and  found  arsenic  present  in  all  the  organs  and  parts  examined.  At 
the  adjourned  inquest  Dr.  Willcox  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  there  must 
have  been  more  than  two  grains  of  arsenic  present  in  the  body  at  the  time 
of  death;  that  death  was  due  to  acute  arsenical  poisoning;  and  that  a 
moderately  large  fatal  dose  must  have  been  taken  less  than  three,  and 
probably  less  than  two,  days  before  death.  On  the  4th  of  December  Seddon 
was  arrested.  On  the  14th  of  December  the  hearing  of  the  inquest  was 
resumed.  Seddon  attended  in  custody,  and  reserved  his  evidence.  At  this 
inquest  the  jury  returned  a  verdict  which  was  recorded  as  follows  :  — 

"  That  the  said  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  died  on  the  14th  of  September, 
1911,  of  arsenical  poisoning  at  63  Tollington  Park,  the  arsenic  having  been 
administered  to  her  by  some  person  or  persons  unknown.  And  so  the 
jurors  aforesaid  do  further  say  that  the  said  person  or  persons  unknown 
on  the  13th  or  14th  or  13th  and  14th  days  of  September,  1911,  did 
feloniously,  wilfully,  and  of  malice  aforethought  murder  and  slay  against 
the  peace  of  our  Lord  the  King,  his  Crown  and  Dignity,  the  said  Eliza 
Mary  Barrow." 

On  the  19th,  22nd,  and  29th  of  December,  and  the  2nd,  9th,  16th, 
19th,  and  26th  of  January,  1912,  the  police  proceedings  took  place.  On 
the  15th  of  January  Mrs.  Seddon  was  arrested  and  charged  with  being 


Introduction. 

concerned  with  her  husband  in  the  murder  of  Miss  Barrow,  and  on  the 
2nd  of  February  both  prisoners  were  committed  for  trial. 

Something  had  occurred  in  the  meantime,  however,  which  may 
suitably  be  noted  here.  On  the  6th  of  December  Maggie  Seddon  was 
sent,  at  the  suggestion  of  her  father,  to  buy  some  Mather's  fly-papers. 
He  had  made  this  suggestion  to  his  solicitor  because,  as  he  said,  when 
puzzling  over  the  problem  of  how  Miss  Barrow  could  have  got  the  arsenic 
into  her  system  he  remembered  that  at  the  time  of  her  illness  there  had 
been  fly-papers  in  the  room,  and  he  had  the  idea  of  purchasing  fly-papers 
now  so  that  they  might  be  analysed  and  the  quantity  of  poison  in 
them  ascertained.  On  presenting  herself  at  the  shop  of  Mr.  Price, 
103  Tollington  Park,  and  asking  for  a  packet  of  fly-papers,  Maggie 
Seddon  was  told  that  she  could  not  be  supplied.  The  chemist  had  heard 
about  the  case,  and  for  some  reason  or  other  did  not  wish  to  be  mixed 
up  in  it.  Now  the  case  for  the  prosecution  rested  on  the  hypothesis  that 
Seddon  had  poisoned  Miss  Barrow  by  arsenic  extracted  from  fly-papers, 
and  although  Mrs.  Seddon  admitted  having  bought  them  and  put  them 
in  the  room,  another  large  purchase,  from  a  chemist  named  Thorley,  was 
alleged  against  Maggie  Seddon,  her  daughter,  in  the  month  of  August, 
1911.  This  purchase  was  denied  by  Maggie  Seddon.  Later,  when  they 
were  preparing  the  case,  the  police  examined  her  on  the  subject  of  the 
purchase  of  fly-papers,  and  so  framed  their  questions  that  she  made  a 
statement,  which  she  signed,  that  she  had  never  been  to  Price's  shop  to 
purchase  fiy-papers.  This  was  not  the  case;  but  it  is  at  least  possible 
that  what  was  in  her  confused  mind  was  the  importance  of  being  accurate, 
and  of  not  making  any  false  admission  which  might  be  damaging  to  her 
father,  and  that  what  she  meant  was  that  she  had  never  purchased 
fly-papers  at  Price's  shop.  If  the  form  of  the  statement  be  altered  from, 
"  I  have  never  been  to  purchase  fly-papers  at  Price's  shop,"  to  "  I  have 
never  been  and  purchased  fly-papers  at  Price's  shop,"  the  mistake  on  her 
part  is  easily  accounted  for.  But  the  fact  that  she  had  signed  a  denial 
of  having  been  at  Price's  shop  was  used  by  the  prosecution  to  discredit 
her  sworn  statement  that  she  had  never  purchased  fly-papers  at  Thorley's 
shop.  Her  identification  by  Thorley,  however,  was  a  still  more  doubtful 
point  in  the  case  for  the  prosecution.  The  common  ground  between  both 
sides  was  that  Maggie  Seddon  knew  Thorley's  daughter,  had  twice  been 
to  the  house,  and  on  one  occasion  had  been  admitted  by  Thorley  himself. 
It  was  obvious  therefore  that  he  had  seen  her.  On  being  questioned  by 
the  police  who  were  making  inquiries  everywhere  in  getting  up  the  case, 
Thorley  said  he  remembered  selling  fly-papers  to  a  fair-haired  girl  on 
the  26th  of  August,  1911.  The  police  then  asked  him  if  he  could 
identify  her.  He  said  he  could  not,  and  several  times  protested  his 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

inability  to  do  so.  By  this  time,  however,  the  Seddon  case  had  attracted 
a  great  deal  of  attention,  and  portraits  of  all  the  family  had  been  in 
the  newspapers.  On  the  2nd  of  February,  1912,  Thorley  was  taken  in 
a  motor  car  to  the  Police  Court  and  shown  a  company  of  twenty  women, 
including  two  girls  with  their  hair  down  their  backs,  and  asked  if  he 
could  identify  the  girl  who  had  purchased  the  fly-papers.  He  identified 
Maggie  Seddon.  He  had  admitted  he  had  seen  her  when  she  had 
been  twice  to  his  house.  He  had  also  seen  her  portrait  in  the  newspapers. 
Hers  was  the  only  face  in  the  whole  company  which  he  had  ever  seen 
before,  and  there  were  only  two  girls  of  an  age  which  could  possibly 
correspond  with  that  of  the  purchaser  of  the  fly-papers.  Much  adverse 
comment  was  aroused  both  by  the  method  with  which  this  identification 
was  obtained,  and  by  the  admission  of  it  into  the  trial  as  damning  evidence 
against  the  prisoner.  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  referred  to  it  in  very  strong 
terms  in  his  address  to  the  jury. 

The  trial  was  opened  at  the  Central  Criminal  Court  in  the  Sessions 
House,  Old  Bailey,  on  Monday,  the  4th  March,  1912,  and  occupied  ten 
days.  It  was  in  every  sense  of  the  word  a  full-dress  trial.  The  eminence 
of  the  counsel  engaged,  the  many  mysteries  involved  in  the  case,  and  the 
prosperous,  middle-class  position  of  the  prisoners  combined  to  excite  in 
the  public  a  very  high  degree  of  interest.  The  Attorney-General  himself 
prosecuted;  and  in  Mr.  Muir,  Mr.  Rowlatt,  and  Mr.  Travers  Humphreys, 
he  was  supported  by  three  of  the  most  able  of  the  counsel  who  are 
associated  with  the  Treasury.  In  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  Seddon  had  an 
advocate  of  established  eminence  in  his  profession  and  of  proved  brilliance 
and  ability.  He  was  assisted  by  Mr.  Dunstan-and  Mr.  Orr,  while  Mr. 
Gervaise  Rentoul  defended  Mrs.  Seddon.  The  trial  was  presided  over  by 
Mr.  Justice  Bucknill. 

The  Court  was  crowded  from  the  first  day,  as  the  case  attracted 
intense  interest,  both  among  the  members  of  the  bar  and  the  general 
public.  Seddon  and  his  wife  were  accommodated  with  chairs  in  the  dock ; 
and  my  remembrance  of  them  throughout  the  ten  days  of  the  trial  is  of 
two  singularly  calm  and  attentive  figures,  more  like  those  of  people 
assisting  at  an  academic  discussion  than  prisoners  on  trial  for  their  lives. 
As  the  case  was  unfolded  it  became  evident  that  there  was  matter  for 
immense  prejudice  against  them  both.  A  great  part  of  the  trial  was 
taken  up  with  the  financial  transactions  between  Seddon  and  the  deceased, 
with  the  identification  of  the  bank  notes,  and  with  the  medical  evidence 
of  Dr.  Willcox  and  Dr.  Spilsbury.  It  was  not  until  Seddon  himself  was 
put  into  the  witness-box  that  the  dramatic  interest  became  at  all  acute ; 
but  then,  indeed,  the  full  force  of  the  prejudice  against  him  came  out. 


Introduction. 

In  his  long  duel  with  the  Attorney- General  he  remained  unshaken  and 
unperturbed.  He  appeared  to  be  as  calm  and  collected  as  if  he  had  been 
in  his  own  office.  It  was  quite  evident  that  his  demeanour  and  coldness 
told  against  him  with  the  jury — one  could  almost  see  it  happening  before 
one's  eyes.  He  had  an  explanation  for  everything ;  he  could  account  for 
every  penny  of  money  in  his  possession  from  long  before  he  had  ever  met 
Miss  Barrow  until  after  her  death ;  and  things  which  his  own  solicitor 
and  counsel  had  racked  their  brains  to  find  an  explanation  for,  he  explained 
with  plausibility  and  exactness.  Only  one  or  two  things  made  him 
indignant.  One  was  the  police  version  of  his  words  when  arrested. 
According  to  Inspector  Ward,  Seddon's  words  when  arrested  were  as 
follows  :  — He  was  told  that  he  would  be  arrested  for  the  wilful  murder  of 
Eliza  Mary  Barrow ;  for  administering  poison — arsenic.  According  to 
the  police,  his  answer  was  "  Absurd.  What  a  terrible  charge — wilful 
murder.  It  is  the  first  of  our  family  that  has  ever  been  charged  with 
such  a  crime.  Are  you  going  to  arrest  my  wife  as  well?  If  not,  I  would 
like  you  to  give  her  a  message  for  me.  Have  they  found  arsenic  in  her 
body?  She  has  not  done  this  herself.  It  was  not  carbolic  acid  was  it, 
as  there  was  some  in  her  room,  and  Sanitas  is  not  poison,  is  it?  "  He 
denied  that  he  had  asked  the  question  about  his  wife,  and  denied  it  with 
great  indignation.  Indeed,  a  little  knowledge  of  the  way  in  which  human 
beings  speak  would  convince  one  that  the  words  taken  down  by  the  police 
inspector  could  not  have  been  the  exact  words  used  by  Seddon,  or,  at  any 
rate,  they  were  not  uttered  in  the  order  in  which  they  appeared  in  his 
evidence.  They  read  much  more  like  an  extract  from  a  policeman's 
note-book  than  the  recorded  speech  of  a  human  being.  But  the  suggestion 
that  Seddon  was  seeking  to  bring  his  wife  into  it  was  bitterly  resented 
by  him.  He  was  also  quite  shocked  by  the  suggestion  that  he  had  counted 
Miss  Barrow's  money  in  the  presence  of  his  two  assistants  on  the  day 
of  her  death.  It  is  curious  to  notice  the  kind  of  thing  which  he  thought 
disgraceful.  He  was  quite  unmoved  by  the  fact  that  he  had  bargained 
for  a  cheap  funeral  for  Miss  Barrow  and  accepted  12s.  6d.  commission 
on  it,  and  other  instances  of  his  mean  and  grasping  nature  left  him 
quite  unperturbed.  But  it  seemed  quite  to  shock  him  that  any  one  should 
suggest  that  he  was  (in  his  own  words)  such  an  inhuman,  degenerate 
monster  as  to  count  out  the  money  he  was  supposed  to  have  stolen  in 
the  presence  of  his  two  assistants.  He  undoubtedly  was  counting  money, 
but  it  was  not  satisfactorily  established  that  it  was  Miss  Barrow's  money. 

The  speeches  at  the  end  of  the  trial  produced  a  great  impression  on 
the  audience,  though  it  is  to  be  doubted  if  they  made  much  impression 
on  the  jury,  who  appeared  to  be  bewildered  by  the  mass  of  technical 
evidence  that  had  been  presented  to  them,  and  to  have  either  made  up 
their  minds  already,  or  to  be  waiting  for  the  summing  up  of  the  judge. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  speeches  of  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  and  Sir  Rufus  Isaacs  occupied  nearly 
five  hours  each.  They  were  admirable  examples  of  two  different  methods. 
Mr.  Marshall  Hall's  speech  was  an  appeal  to  the  heart,  clothed  in  the 
subtlest  intellectual  disguise ;  Sir  Rufus  Isaacs's  was  an  appeal  to  the 
head,  solemnised  rather  than  softened  by  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
human  emotions.  The  defence  was  eager  and  pleading,  and  had  soaring 
moments  of  great  eloquence,  of  which  the  music  and  manner  alike  were 
memorable.  The  speech  for  the  prosecution  was  criticised  by  some  who 
heard  it  as  a  "hanging  speech,"  but  it  was  certainly  admirable  in  its 
clarity  and  in  the  force  and  weight  of  its  cold  reasoning. 

The  summing  up  was  the  least  satisfactory  thing  in  the  trial.  Mr. 
Justice  Bucknill  seemed  to  be  feeling  the  effects  of  this  very  long  and 
intricate  inquiry,  and  perhaps  a  younger  and  stronger  judge,  with  more 
experience  of  criminal  law  and  less  affected  by  the  emotional  aspects  of 
the  case,  would  have  put  its  issues  more  satisfactorily  before  the  jury. 
It  is  possible  that  Mr.  Justice  Bucknill,  the  most  humane  and  kind-hearted 
of  men,  knowing  that  he  was  harrowed  by  the  whole  thing,  forced  himself 
on  that  account  to  be  more  severe ;  it  is  often  the  way  with  humane 
persons.  At  any  rate,  although  throughout  the  trial  he  had  seemed  to 
incline  now  to  this  siue  and  now  to  that,  the  whole  tendency  of  his 
summing  up  was  dead  against  the  prisoner  and  all  in  favour  of  his  wife. 
The  usual  direction  about  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  he  laboured  at  great 
length,  but  he  chiefly  laboured  it  to  impress  upon  the  jury  that  it  was 
impossible  for  doubt  not  to  exist,  and  he  attempted  to  differentiate- 
elaborately  between  reasonable  doubt  and  unreasonable  doubt.  This 
seemed  to  me  at  the  time,  and  seems  still,  a  dangerous  proceeding. 
There  are  two  ways  of  uttering  this  warning.  The  traditional  way  is  to 
say,  in  short,  "  If  you  have  no  doubt  as  to  the  prisoner's  guilt  you  must 
declare  him  guilty,  but  if  you  have  any  doubt,  any  reasonable  doubt,  he 
is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  it,  and  you  must  give  effect  to  it  in  a  verdict 
of  not  guilty."  What  Mr.  Justice  Bucknill  said  in  effect  was,  "Of 
course,  if  you  are  convinced  that  there  is  a  doubt  in  the  matter,  your 
verdict  must  be  one  of  not  guilty.  But  you  must  remember  that  there 
is  an  element  of  doubt  in  all  human  affairs,  and  what  you  must  ask 
yourselves  in  this  case  is,  is  there  any  reasonable  doubt  judged  by  the 
standard  which  I  should  apply  to  the  ordinary  business  affairs  of  my 
life?  If  there  is  not,  then  you  must  bring  in  a  verdict  of  '  Guilty,'  and 
not  shrink  from  the  consequences,  strong  in  the  sense  that  you  have 
performed  the  duty  required  of  you  in  your  oath."  There  is  no  doubt 
as  to  the  effect  of  this  kind  of  charge;  humanly  speaking,  it  amounts  to 
a  direction  to  find  the  prisoner  guilty.  And  that  is  what  the  jury  did 
in  this  case. 

The  real  drama  in  this  trial  came  at  the  end  of  the  long  and  anxious 


Introduction. 

address  of  Mr.  Justice  Bucknill  to  the  jury.  When  they  retired,  and  the 
Judge  and  Sheriff  went  to  their  apartments  to  have  tea,  the  buzz  in  the 
Court  reminded  one  of  nothing  so  much  as  the  entr'acte  in  a  theatre  at 
a  matinee  performance.  I  noticed  that  Seddon  had  been  growing  paler 
and  more  worn  and  strained-looking  all  through  the  day,  and  though  he 
never  lost  his  self-command,  it  was  obvious  that  the  strain  of  attention 
which  he  had  given  to  the  trial,  to  say  nothing  of  the  suspense,  was 
telling  on  him  terribly.  Mrs.  Seddon  seemed  less  affected.  They 
retired  also;  to  what  ordeal  of  suspense  no  man  can  measure.  And 
the  entr'acte  of  an  hour  began. 

And  then,  suddenly,  when  the  return  of  the  jury  was  announced,  the 
feeling  in  the  Court  was  tuned  up,  like  the  rising  pitch  of  violin  strings,  to 
an  almost  excruciating  note.  The  jury  returned  and  answered  to  their 
names.  The  Judge,  with  the  Lord  Mayor,  the  Sheriff,  and  Aldermen,  came 
slowly  back  to  the  bench.  Every  one  looked  towards  the  dock;  the 
wardresses  and  the  warders  and  the  prisoners  came  climbing  back  into  it. 
This  time  there  was  a  doctor  with  them,  who  also  sat  in  the  dock,  and  an 
officer  stood  close  behind  Seddon.  You  could  have  heard  a  pin  fall. 

The  Deputy-Clerk  of  the  Court,  in  pleasant,  easy  tones,  asked  the 
jury  the  fateful  question,  and  asked  it  first  as  relating  to  Seddon.  I 
looked  away  from  them  to  him  while  I  listened.  His  eyes  were  turned  on 
them  with  a  hungry,  questioning  look  such  as  I  have  never  seen  before. 
I  heard  the  word  "  Guilty."  He  never  moved  or  changed  his  expression ; 
and  the  question  was  again  asked  with  relation  to  his  wife.  The  answer 
came,  "  Not  Guilty,"  and  his  expression  relaxed  a  little.  While  the  Clerk 
of  the  Court  was  entering  the  verdict  in  his  book  Seddon  quickly  went  up 
to  his  wife  and  gave  her  one  sounding  kiss,  the  loudness  of  which  echoed 
incongruously  through  the  death-like  silence  of  the  Court;  and  then  he 
turned  to  the  front  of  the  dock  and  took  some  papers  from  his  pocket.  She 
was  half -supported,  half -carried  out,  and  we  heard  her  sobs  sound  from 
below  in  the  tense  silence  of  the  moment. 

The  Clerk  of  the  Court  asked  Seddon  if  he  had  anything  to  say  why 
sentence  should  not  be  passed,  and  he  then  went  to  the  front  of  the  dock  and 
made  that  extraordinarily  clear  and  explicit  statement  which  will  be  found  in 
its  place  at  the  end  of  the  trial.  Quite  calm  in  his  manner,  swallowing  a 
little  as  he  spoke,  but  otherwise  in  perfect  command  of  himself,  he  went 
through  an  intricate  yet  lucid  array  of  facts  and  figures,  and,  finally,  with 
his  hand  lifted  up  to  take  the  Mason's  oath,  he  swore  by  the  Great  Architect 
of  the  Universe  that  he  was  innocent  of  the  crime.  The  moment  was 
excruciating  for  any  one  who,  if  he  was  not  assured  of  Seddon's  innocence, 
was  certainly  not  assured  that  his  guilt  had  been  satisfactorily  proved,  and 
there  was  more  than  one  such  person  in  the  Court. 

XXV 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Judge's  secretary,  who  sat  beside  him,  had  lifted  a  square  of 
black  cloth,  and  held  it  in  his  hand.  A  figure  in  a  black  gown  had  glided 
in  at  a  side  door  and  stood  behind  the  Judge's  chair;  it  was  the  chaplain. 
The  secretary  arranged  the  black  square  on  the  Judge's  wig.  Then  the 
high  tones  of  the  usher  sounded  through  the  Court,  crying  the  proclamation 
for  silence  while  sentence  of  death  is  passing.  The  doors  of  the  Court  were 
locked.  Seddon  listened  attentively,  scrupulously,  as  though  every  word 
were  vital. 

And    the    quiet,    gentlemanly    tones    of    the    Judge    began    again, 

admonishing  the  prisoner.     But  every  now  and  then  his  voice  dropped  to  a 

\  whisper.        He   reminded   Seddon  that  they  were  members   of  the  same 

I  brotherhood,  but  that  it  was  a  brotherhood  that  did  not  encourage  crime, 
which  condemned  crime.  He  spoke  gently  of  the  wife,  saying  that,  if  it 
was  any  comfort  to  the  prisoner  to  know  it,  he  could  tell  him  that  he 
believed  the  verdict  of  the  jury  with  regard  to  her  was  a  right  one.  Seddon 
nodded  in  acquiescence  at  this,  as  he  did  again  when  the  Judge  spoke  of 
his  having  had  a  fair  trial.  Twice  only  he  interrupted  the  Judge,  but  in 
quiet  and  civil  tones.  Once,  when  the  Judge  spoke  about  his  terrible 
?  position,  he  said  quietly,  "  It  doesn't  affect  me,  sir — I've  a  clear  conscience," 

I 

and   once   again   when  the  gentlemanly   faltering  voice  implored   him  to 
make  his  peace  with  God,  Seddon  said,  "  I  am  at  peace." 

And  I  do  believe  he  was  the  most  peaceful  man  in  the  Court.  The 
Judge  was  all  but  sobbing,  and  had  to  pause  and  brace  himself  before  he 
could  begin  to  utter  the  sentence,  which  he  finished  in  tears,  while  the 
black-gowned  figure  behind  him  murmured  "  Amen."  But  Seddon  was  calm, 
and  when  it  was  all  over,  and  while  the  Judge,  wiping  his  eyes,  was  excusing 

,  the  jury  from  attending  for  ten  years,  he  hitched  his  overcoat  about  him 
with  his  old  gesture  and  took  a  drink  of  water,  and  made  ready  to  descend 
the  stairs  that  would  take  him  away  from  the  world  of  men  for  ever.  As 
he  turned  to  go  down  he  looked  through  the  glass  at  the  people  at  the  back 

I  of  the  Court,  where  his  own  friends  were,  and  where  his  own  little  girl  had 

I  been  sitting  earlier  in  the  afternoon — a  bleak,  wintry  look — and  then  he 
was  gone. 


It  cannot  be  said  that  Seddon  suffered  from  any  want  of  skill  or 
resource  in  his  defence.  Everything  was  done  that  could  be  done;  by 
himself,  by  his  solicitor,  Mr.  Walter  Saint,  who  brought  great  intelligence 
and  unwearying  energy  to  bear  upon  it;  by  Mr.  Wellesley  Orr,  whose 
preparation  of  the  brief  and  analysis  of  the  evidence  were  masterly;  and 
by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  whose  eminent  gifts  as  an  advocate  were  never 
xxvi 


Introduction. 

seen  to  greater  advantage  than  in  his  whole  conduct  of  the  case  in  Court, 
where  his  patience,  his  watchfulness,  his  tenacity,  and  his  eloquence  won 
a  generous  and  well-deserved  tribute  of  admiration  from  the  Attorney- 
General.  But  doubts  which  in  the  case  of  a  Madeleine  Smith  or  a  Florence 
Maybrick  would  have  been  sufficient  to  procure  either  an  acquittal  on  the 
grounds  of  insufficient  evidence,  or  at  any  rate  a  revocation  of  the  sentence, 
were  unavailing  in  the  case  of  Seddon.  The  hearing  of  the  inevitable 
appeal  attracted  almost  as  much  interest  in  the  Law  Courts  as  the  trial 
itself  had  excited  at  the  Old  Bailey.  For  two  days  Mr.  Marshall  Hall 
argued  before  an  interested  but  unsympathetic  tribunal;  and  Mr.  Justice 
Darling's  clear-cut  judgment  put  an  end  to  any  hopes  there  might  have 
been  of  help  from  that  quarter.  There  remained  only  the  appeal  to 
the  Home  Secretary,  Mr.  M'Kenna ;  an  appeal  which  was  supported  by 
upwards  of  three  hundred  thousand  signatures.  This  also  was  unavailing; 
and,  although  Seddon  himself  had  placed  high  hopes  upon  it  and  was  bitterly 
disappointed  by  its  failure,  he  received  the  dread  news  with  something  of 
the  philosophic  stoicism  which  had  marked  his  demeanour  throughout. 

Seddon  never  made  any  confession  of  any  kind,  and  asserted  his 
innocence  until  the  end.  Many  things  about  the  case  remain  wrapped  in 
mystery.  No  one  has  any  idea  as  to  how  Miss  Barrow  got  arsenic  into  her 
system.  Dr.  Willcoz,  who  believed  in  Seddon's  guilt,  does  not  believe  that 
he  used  any  decoction  of  fly-papers.  It  is  possible  that  the  idea  of  fly- 
papers, introduced  by  Seddon  himself,  was  a  blind,  and  that  he  used  arsenic 
in  the  form  of  rat  poison  or  weed  killer.  It  was  he  himself  who  purposely 
put  the  police  on  the  fly-paper  line,  and  it  may  have  been  a  very  deeply  con- 
ceived scheme  to  throw  them  off  the  true  scent;  whatever  it  was,  it  hanged 
him.  It  served  as  a  reasonable  theory;  but  none  of  the  counsel  engaged 
nor  Seddon's  own  solicitor  have  any  reasonable  theory  as  to  how  or  when 
the  poison  was  taken  or  administered.  Mrs.  Seddon's  acquittal  makes  any 
speculation  as  to  her  knowledge  or  share  in  it  impossible  here,  but  a 
most  deplorable  act  on  her  part  falls  to  be  recorded.  A  few  months  after 
Seddon's  death  she  married  again,  and  has  since,  I  believe,  emigrated  with 
all  her  family  to  California.  But  the  Weekly  Dispatch  of  17th  November,  ) 
1912,  published  a  signed  declaration  by  Mrs.  Seddon  to  the  effect  that 
she  saw  her  husband  give  the  poison  to  Miss  Barrow,  that  he  administered 
it  on  the  night  of  her  death,  and  that  he  terrorised  her  into  silence  with  a 
revolver.  This  produced  a  painful  enough  impression  about  Mrs.  Seddon, 
but  the  impression  was  heightened  when  a  fortnight  later  John  Bull, 
which  had  sent  a  commissioner  to  Liverpool  to  inquire  into  the  matter, 
published  an  affidavit  sworn  before  a  Commissioner  for  Oaths  to  the  effect 
that  the  alleged  confession  was  untrue;  that  she  had  done  it  for  payment, 

xxvii 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

and  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  gossip  of  neighbours  who  pointed  her 
I  out  as  a  murderess.     No  further  comment  on  this  incident  is  necessary. 

Seddon  remained  interested  in  money  until  the  end,  and  on  the  after- 
noon before  he  was  executed  sent  for  his  solicitor  for  no  other  purpose  than 
to  ascertain  what  certain  articles  of  his  furniture  had  fetched  at  auction. 
He  was  roused  to  indignation  when  he  heard  the  smallness  of  the  amount, 
and.  striking  the  table  at  which  he  sat  in  the  warder's  room,  said  in  tones 
of  scorn  and  resignation,  "  That's  done  it  I  "  He  was  really  anxious  that 
his  wife  should  get  all  that  was  possible  out  of  the  wreck  of  his  fortune, 
but  displayed  no  emotion  whatever  with  regard  to  his  own  impending  fate. 
His  insensibility  and  steadiness  of  demeanour  kept  him  company,  I  under- 
stand, to  the  threshold  of  death.  There  were  seven  thousand  people — 
an  unprecedented  crowd — outside  the  gate  of  Pentonville  on  the  morning 
of  his  execution — a  circumstance  which,  could  he  have  known  it,  would 
have  flattered  his  vanity.  But  he  could  not  know  it ;  and  it  was  in  silence 
that  he  walked  out  through  that  square  portal  at  Pentonville,  through 
which  so  many  others  have  passed,  never  to  return.  He  lies  beneath  the 
quiet  little  plot  of  grass  which  in  final  mercy  covers  so  many  cruelties, 
agonies,  and  infamies;  only  a  square  stone  inscribed  with  his  initials  and 
a  date  serving  to  remind  the  few  who  ever  see  it  of  the  end  to  which  so 
much  industry,  so  much  calculation,  and  so  much  coveteousness  brought 
him. 


Leading  Dates  in  the  Seddon  Case. 

1901. — Seddon.  appointed  district  superintendent  for  Islington 
under  the  London  and  Manchester  Industrial 
Assurance  Company. 

Nov.  1909.     Seddon  comes  to  live  at  63  Tollington  Park,  Islington. 

June  20,  1910.  Seddon  instructs  house  agents  to  obtain  a  tenant  for 
his  top  floor. 

July  25,  1910.  Miss  Barrow  and  the  Hooks  come  as  tenants  to 
Tollington  Park. 

Aug.         11,  1910.     The  Hooks  leave. 

Oct.  14,  1910.  Miss  Barrow  transfers  £1600  India  stock  to  Seddon 
in  purchase  of  an  annuity. 

Jan.  9,   1911.     The  Buck's  Head  property  is  assigned  by  Miss  Barrow 

to  Seddon  in  purchase  of  an  annuity. 

June  19,  1911.  Miss  Barrow  draws  £216  in  gold  from  the  London 
and  Finsbury  Savings  Bank. 

Aug.  5,  1911.     The  Seddons  and  Miss  Barrow  go  to  Southend. 

Aug.  8,  1911.     They    return. 

Aug.  26,  1911.  Alleged  purchase  by  Maggie  Seddon  of  Mather's  fly- 
papers at  Thorley's. 

Sept.  1,  1911.     Miss  Barrow  taken  ill  with  bilious  attack. 

Sept.  2,  1911.  Dr.  Sworn  finds  her  to  be  suffering  from  acute 
diarrhoea  and  sickness. 

Sept.  4,  1911.  Diarrhoea  better,  sickness  worse.  Miss  Barrow  refuses 
to  go  to  hospital  when  spoken  to  by  Dr.  Sworn. 

Sept.  5-9,  1911.  Miss  Barrow  visited  daily  by  Dr.  Sworn.  Condition 
much  the  same. 

Sept.        11,  1911.     Seddon's  sister  and  niece  come  to  him  on  a  visit. 

Sept.  13,  1911.  Miss  Barrow  worse.  Incident  of  the  midnight  cry,  "I 
am  dying!"  (11.30  p.m.). 

Sept.  14,  1911.  Miss  Barrow  dies  (6.20  a.m.).  Dr.  Sworn,  without 
seeing  her,  gives  Seddon  a  certificate.  Ernie 
Grant  and  the  young  Seddons  sent  to  Southend. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Sept.  16,  1911.  Miss  Barrow  buried  at  Finchley. 

Sept.  20-21,  1911.  The  Vonderahes  call  at  Tollington  Park. 

Sept.  22,  1911.  The  Seddons  go  for  a  fortnight  to  the  (seaside. 

Oct.  9,  1911.  Mr.  Vonderahe's  interview  with  Seddon. 

Nov.  15,  1911.  Miss  Barrow's  body  exhumed. 

Nov.  23,  1911.  Inquest. 

Dec.  4,  1911.  Seddon  arrested. 

Dec.  14,  1911.  Adjourned  inquest  and  verdict. 

Jan.  15,  1912.  Mrs.  Seddon  arrested. 

Feb.         12,   1912.     Magisterial  hearing  concluded.     Both  prisoners  com- 
mitted for  trfal. 

March        4,  1912.     Trial  of  the  Seddons  at  the  Old  Bailey  begins. 

March      14,  1912.     Mrs.    Seddon   acquitted    and   released.      Seddon   con- 
demned to  death. 

April  1,  1912.     Seddon  appeals  against  his  conviction. 

April  2,   1912.     Appeal  dismissed. 

April         18,  1912.     Seddon  executed  at  Pentonville. 


XXX 


THE  TRIAL. 


CENTRAL  CRIMINAL  COURT,  OLD  BAILEY. 
MONDAY,    4TH    MARCH,    1912. 


Judge — 
Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL. 


Counsel  for  the  Grown — 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  (The  Right  Hon.  SIR  RUFUS  D. 

ISAACS,  K.C.,  M.R). 
Mr.  R.  D.  Mum. 
Mr.  S.  A.  T.  ROWLATT. 
Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS. 


Counsel  for  the  Prisoner,  Frederick  Henry  Seddon- 
Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL,  K.C.,  M.P. 
Mr.  DUNSTAN. 
Mr.  ORR. 


Counsel  for  the  Prisoner,  Margaret  Ann  Seddon- 
Mr.  GERVAIS  RENTOUL. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


AN  USHER  OF  THE  COURT — If  any  one  can  inform  my  Lords,  the  King's 
Justices,  the  King's  Serjeant,  or  the  King's  Attorney-General,  ere  this 
inquest  be  taken  between  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King  and  the  prisoners 
at  the  bar,  of  any  treasons,  murders,  felonies,  or  misdemeanours,  done  or 
committed  by  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  let  him  come  forth,  and  he  shall 
be  heard;  for  the  prisoners  now  stand  at  the  bar  on  their  deliverance.  And 
all  persons  who  are  bound  by  recognisance  to  prosecute  or  give  evidence 
against  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  let  them  come  forth,  prosecute,  and  give 
evidence,  or  they  shall  forfeit  their  recognisances.  God  save  the  King. 

The  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Frederick  Henry  Seddon  and 
Margaret  Ann  Seddon.  You  are  charged  on  indictment  for  that  you  on 
the  14th  day  of  September  in  last  year  feloniously  and  wilfully  and  of  your 
malice  aforethought  did  kill  and  murder  one  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  Frederick 
Henry  Seddon  are  you  guilty  or  not  ? 

FREDERICK  HENRY  SEDDON — Not  guilty. 

THE  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Margaret  Ann  Seddon  are  you 
guilty  or  not? 

MARGARET  ANN  SEDDON — Not  guilty. 

The  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  prisoners 
at  the  bar,  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  and  Margaret  Ann  Seddon,  are  charged  on 
indictment  for  that  they  on  the  14th  of  September  of  last  year  did  feloniously 
and  wilfully  kill  and  murder  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  To  this  indictment  they 
have  severally  put  not  guilty,  and  it  is  your  charge  to  say  whether  they  or 
either  of  them  are  guilty  or  not. 

Opening  Speech  for  the  Prosecution. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — May  it  please  you,  my  lord.  Gentlemen 
of  the  jury — The  male  prisoner,  Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  and  his  wife 
stand  charged  before  you  with  the  wilful  murder  of  a  Miss  Eliza  Mary 
Barrow  at  their  house  at  63  Tollington  Park,  in  the  north  of  London, 
on  the  14th  September,  1911,  by  administering  arsenic  to  her.  The  case 
is  one  which  demands  your  very  close  attention,  not  only  because  it  is 
a  charge  of  the  gravest  character  known  to  the  law,  but  also  because  it 
is  a  case  which  is  placed  before  you  by  the  Crown  upon  circumstantial 
evidence,  and  not  upon  direct  evidence,  of  the  administering  of  the  poison. 
It  will  involve  your  inquiring  in  some  little  detail  into  the  events  during 
some  months  before  the  decease  of  this  Miss  Barrow,  during  which  time 
she  was  living  with  the  prisoners  as  a  lodger  in  rooms  which  she  had  rented 
from  them,  and  which  she  continued  to  occupy  until  this  fateful  14th 
September.  Gentlemen,  I  will  only  make  one  passing  observation  to  you 
before  I  proceed  to  deal  with  the  facts  of  this  case,  to  remind  you  that  this 
case  must  be  tried,  and  will  be  tried,  upon  the  evidence  which  is  given  in 
this  Court,  and  in  this  Court  only,  and  if  you  have  by  any  possibility  read 
accounts  of  inquiries  into  this  case,  or  any  comment  upon  it  in  the  daily 
press,  you  will  not  pay  any  attention  to  that,  but  you  will  discard  it  entirely 
from  your  minds,  and  attend  only  to  the  evidence  that  is  given  before 
you,  and  to  what  takes  place  during  the  trial  in  this  Court. 

Now,  gentlemen,  may  I  point  out  to  you,  before  I  proceed  to  tell  you 
the  story,  that  in  a  case  of  this  character  the  inquiry  must  necessarily 
depend  upon  three  main  points.  Wherever  you  have  a  trial  of  this  character 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

in  which  there  is  no  direct  evidence  of  the  administering  of  the  poison, 
you  must  necessarily  look  closely  into  all  the  facts  leading  up  to  the 
14th  September,  the  important  date,  and  also  you  will  have  to  consider 
what  happened  thereafter ;  and,  as  I  shall  submit  to  you,  you  will  have  to 
consider  what  the  interest  of  these  two  persons  was  in  the  immediate  death 
of  this  woman,  what  motive  they  had  or  could  have  for  doing  her  to  death. 
You  will  also  have  to  consider  what  opportunities  they  had  of  administering 
this  poison  to  her;  and  then  you  will  also  direct  your  attention  to  what 
happened  after  the  death,  what  the  conduct  was  of  these  persons  both 
immediately  before  and  immediately  after  and  for  some  little  time  after  the 
murder  of  this  woman. 

The  male  prisoner  Seddon  is  a  superintendent  of  canvassers  for  the 
Industrial  Assurance  Company.  He  had  been  in  their  employment  for  a 
number  of  years,  had  been  superintendent  of  canvassers  since  1901, 
and  at  the  time  in  question,  the  material  date,  he  was  occupying  a  house 
at  63  Tollington  Park,  in  the  north  of  London,  where  he  lived  with  his 
wife  and  family,  consisting  of  five  children,  and  where  at  any  rate  the 
upper  floor,  the  second  floor  of  the  house,  was  let  eventually  during  the 
important  dates  to  which  I  shall  call  your  attention  directly,  to  Miss 
Barrow.  The  male  prisoner's  office  was  in  the  basement  of  his  house, 
where  there  was  a  large  room  with  a  bay  window  out  to  the  front,  and 
where  he  did  most  of  his  business,  and,  as  you  will  hear  later  on,  it  was 
the  habit  of  those  in  the  employ  of  this  Industrial  Assurance  Company, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  collect  the  moneys  for  him,  to  hand  them  over  to 
him;  the  canvassers  in  his  particular  district  handed  their  moneys  over  to 
him  generally  on  a  Thursday. 

Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  the  woman  who,  according  to  the  case  which  we 
submit  to  you,  was  murdered  by  poison  on  the  14th  September  of  last  year, 
was  a  spinster  of  just  about  forty-nine  years  of  age.  She  appears  to  have 
been  a  woman  of  somewhat  curious  temperament.  She  is  described  by 
one  or  two  witnesses  as  a  somewhat  eccentric  person.  She  appears  to  have 
been  deaf;  according,  again,  to  some  of  the  evidence  which  will  be  called 
before  you,  very  deaf ;  and  she  had  one  small  boy  who  lived  with  her 
from  1909,  now  about  ten  or  eleven  years  of  age,  to  whom  she  was 
devotedly  attached,  who  was  an  orphan,  the  son  of  a  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Grant, 
with  whom  she  had  lived  from  about  1902  till  1908,  Mr.  Grant  having 
been  some  kind  of  a  relative  of  hers,  Mrs.  Grant  being  a  woman  with 
whom  she  was  on  the  friendliest  terms ;  and  after  the  death  of  Mrs.  Grant, 
certainly  some  short  time  afterwards,  Miss  Barrow  seems  to  have  taken 
this  boy  to  live  with  her,  and  adopted  him  as  her  own.  There  was  a  girl 
also,  Hilda,  but  of  her  you  will  hear  little  in  this  case,  and  there  is  nothing 
of  any  importance  that  I  need  refer  to  in  that  connection. 

In  1909  Miss  Barrow  went  to  live  with  some  relative  of  hers,  a  Mrs. 
Vonderahe,  who  lived  in  North  London,  in  Evershot  Road.  She  went 
there  to  live,  taking  with  her  this  small  boy,  Ernie  Grant.  She  lived 
with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Vonderahe,  paying  for  her  board  and  lodging,  and 
continued  to  live  there  until  she  moved  on  the  26th  July  of  1910  to  63 
Tollington  Park,  the  house  occupied  by  the  prisoners.  She  left  the 
Vonderahes  in  consequence  of  some  disagreement.  She  had  been  living 
with  them  for  some  considerable  time,  something  like  eighteen  months,  but 
whatever  the  cause  of  it  was  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  did  not  agree  in 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

the  end,  and  in  consequence  of  this  Miss  Barrow  looked  out  for  other 
apartments,  and  lighted  upon  this  floor,  which  was  to  be  let  by  the  Seddons, 
the  prisoners.  During  this  time  and  up  to  the  time  when  she  moved  into 
this  house  on  the  26th  July  of  1910,  Miss  Barrow  was  the  possessor  of  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  money,  amounting  to  something  like  £4000  capital 
value.  She  had  £1600  in  India  3£  per  cent.  She  was  also  the  owner  of  a 
leasehold  property  which  brought  her  in  at  least  £120  a  year  profit,  and  that 
lease  continues  till  1929,  when  it  expires.  She  appears  to  have  had  one  very 
curious  characteristic,  that  of  hoarding  gold  and  bank  notes.  She  did 
not  place  them  in  a  bank,  but  she  appears  to  have  kept  them  in  a  cash  box, 
and  kept  gold  and  notes  to  a  very  large  amount.  According  to  the  evidence 
that  will  be  placed  before  you,  she  had  during  a  considerable  time  some 
£400  in  gold  in  a  cash  box,  and  a  considerable  number  of  notes,  the  exact 
number  I  am  not  able  to  tell  you;  but,  as  you  will  hear  during  the  course 
of  the  case,  there  must  have  been  at  least  33  £5  notes  in  that  cash  box, 
because  we  shall  trace  every  one  of  those  notes  and  their  subsequent  history 
into  the  possession  of  either  the  male  or  the  female  prisoner.  Besides 
that,  she  had  a  sum  of  £200  odd  in  a  savings  bank,  the  Finsbury  and  City 
of  London  Savings  Bank.  So  that,  as  you  will  observe,  when  she  went 
into  the  prisoners'  house  at  63  Tollington  Park  in  this  July,  1910,  she  had 
this  considerable  amount  of  property  which  I  have  explained  to  you.  She 
appears,  as  you  will  hear  a  little  later  in  more  detail,  to  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  cashing  the  cheque  which  she  received  from  the  leasehold  property 
across  the  counter,  an  open  cheque,  each  quarter,  and  receiving  the  notes 
for  it,  and  then  putting  these  notes  into  the  cash  box.  It  will  be  proved 
before  you  that  some  notes  which  were  eventually  traced  to  the  possession 
of  the  prisoners  are  notes  which  were  received  by  her  from  the  bank 
across  the  counter  for  the  cheques  which  she  had  received  in  respect  of  the 
property  for  a  period  ranging  over  some  ten  years,  from  1901  till  1910, 
and  as  she  got  the  notes,  so  it  appears  that  she  placed  these  notes  into 
the  cash  box ;  they  never  seem  to  have  gone  into  any  bank  at  all.  Either 
receiving  gold  or  notes,  she  accumulated  them  and  kept  them  in  this  box, 
and  that  box  was  moved  with  her  to  63  Tollington  Park  in  this  July,  1910. 
Gentlemen,  I  would  like  to  direct  your  attention  for  the  moment  to 
the  particular  point  to  which  I  am  now  going  to  address  you,  so  that  you 
may  follow  it  in  all  its  bearings.  It  will  be  shown  to  you  that  all  this 
property  disappears  by  the  14th  September  of  1911,  and  that  on  that  date 
there  was  no  cash  in  her  possession  except  a  sum  of  £4  10s.,  according  to 
one  statement,  and  £10  according  to  another  statement  of  the  male 
prisoner ;  and  that  that  was  the  total  amount  of  property  of  which  she  died 
possessed,  except  for  some  personal  belongings,  trinkets,  furniture,  and 
clothing,  which  were  valued  at  something  like  £15,  so  that  she  had  come 
into  the  house  on  the  26th  of  July,  1910,  with  all  this  property,  and  on 
her  death  on  the  14th  September,  1911,  she  had  nothing  except  these 
small  amounts  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention.  You  will  hear  that 
in  the  meanwhile  all  this  property  found  its  way  into  the  possession  of  the 
Seddons,  more  particularly  as  regards  the  male  prisoner.  So  far  as  we 
have  been  able  to  trace  it,  it  all  gets  into  his  possession.  I  make  that 
observation  for  this  reason,  that,  according  to  the  evidence  which  we  shall 
place  before  you,  we  do  not  actually  trace  what  becomes  of  the  gold  which 
was  in  the  box  according  to  the  evidence  when  she  moved  into  the  house 
4 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

in  July  of  1910,  but  as  to  the  notes,  which,  of  course,  are  much  more 
easily  traceable,  there  will  be  evidence  before  you  which  I  shall  submit 
to  you  placing  beyond  all  question  that  these  notes  had  got  out  of  the  cash 
box  into  the  possession  of  these  prisoners.  The  £1600  3£  per  cent,  stock 
disappeared  at  an  early  date  from  her  possession,  being  transferred  in 
October,  1910,  to  the  male  prisoner.  The  leasehold  property  was  trans- 
ferred also  to  the  male  prisoner ;  and,  although  I  do  not  suggest  to  you  that 
we  trace  the  actual  coins,  upon  the  evidence  I  shall  submit  to  you  that  the 
gold  which  was  drawn  out  of  the  Finsbury  and  City  of  London  Savings 
Bank  in  June  of  1911,  as  it  was  consisting  of  £216,  which  represented  the 
money  which  had  accumulated  there  since  1887  for  her  account,  and  was 
drawn  out  by  her  in  the  company  of  the  female  prisoner  in  June,  1911, 
that  something  like  that  sum  of  money  in  gold  was  seen  in  the  possession 
of  the  male  prisoner  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  September,  after  Miss 
Barrow  had  died  from  this  arsenic  poisoning  between  6  and  7  o'clock  of 
that  morning. 

In  some  little  detail  I  will  show  you  later  how  all  that  happened. 
For  the  moment  I  want  to  direct  your  attention  to  this,  that  the  money 
had  passed  therefore  from  her  to  the  Seddons'  possession,  and  I  want  to 
place  before  you  the  explanation,  so  far  as  there  is  an  explanation,  of  what 
had  happened  with  regard  to  that  money.  You  will  see  that  upon  the 
male  prisoner's  own  story  with  regard  to  this,  if  you  accept  it  as  true — I 
shall  have  some  criticism  to  pass  upon  it  for  your  consideration — but  if 
you  accept  it  as  true,  he  had  every  interest  in  getting  rid  of  this  woman, 
Miss  Barrow,  on  the  14th  September  of  1911. 

In  July,  when  she  came  to  the  house,  she  brought  with  her  not  only 
the  boy,  Ernest  Grant,  but  a  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook,  who  were  friends  of 
hers.  Mr.  Hook  was  the  brother  of  the  Mrs.  Grant,  to  whom  I  have 
referred,  and  they  came  to  live  there;  but,  as  you  will  hear,  they  remained 
there  for  a  very  short  time,  because  on  the  Sunday,  within  eight  or "  ten 
days  of  their  arrival  at  this  house  and  their  residence  there,  there  was 
trouble  caused  in  some  way  by  their  having  gone  out  with  the  boy,  and, 
as  a  consequence,  as  you  will  hear,  they  left  the  premises  on  the  Tuesday, 
10th  August.  So  that  from  10th  August  of  1910  until  14th  September  of 
1911  she  was  residing  in  the  house  with  Ernest  Grant  alone.  She  does 
not  appear  to  have  had  any  relatives  calling  upon  her,  so  far  as  we  know 
from  the  evidence,  which  you  will  hear,  neither,  apparently,  had  she  friends. 
But  at  an  early  period,  this  period  of  October  to  which  I  have  called  your 
attention,  when  this  money  begins  to  disappear  from  Miss  Barrow's  posses- 
sion, and  when  it  passed  from  her  to  them,  you  will  find  that  both  the  male 
prisoner  and  the  female  prisoner  are  dealing  with  the  £5  notes  which 
undoubtedly  belonged  to  Miss  Barrow,  had  belonged  to  her,  which  had  been 
in  this  cash  box;  and  you  will  find  also  that  the  female  prisoner,  in  this 
month  of  October  of  1910,  at  this  important  date  when  the  India  3J  per 
cent,  and  the  leasehold  property  were  being  transferred  to  the  male  prisoner, 
the  female  prisoner  changed  these  £5  notes,  endorsing  them  with  a  false 
name,  M.  Scott,  and  with  a  false  address,  18  Evershot  Road.  No  such 
person  lived  at  Evershot  Road ;  the  female  prisoner  had  nothing  to  do  with 
18  Evershot  Road ;  it  was  a  false  name  and  a  false  address.  The  rest  of  the 
notes  are  traced,  and  show  this,  that  between  that  period,  the  first  date, 
14th  October,  1910,  and  the  date  of  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow,  thirty -three 

5 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

£5  notes  had  been  dealt  -with,  of  which  six  went  into  the  male  prisoner's 
bank — he  had  a  banking  account,  as  you  will  hear — and  the  rest  of  them 
were  dealt  with  by  the  female  prisoner.  There  were  altogether  nine  dealt 
with  by  her  with  a  false  name  and  address.  Two  of  them  as  I  have 
described  to  you  already ;  six  of  them  were  dealt  with,  endorsed  by  her,  and 
changed  at  tradesmen's,  and  endorsed  "  Mrs.  Scott,  18  Evershot  Road  "  ; 
one  of  them  was  endorsed  "Mrs.  Scott,  12  Evershot  Road";  nine  of  them 
therefore,  according  to  the  particulars  I  have  already  given  you,  were 
endorsed  by  her  with  a  false  name  and  a  false  address.  You  will  have  to 
ask  yourselves  during  the  course  of  this  inquiry  not  only  why  that  was 
done,  but,  of  course,  what  bearing  that  has  upon  this  trial?  The  rest  of 
them  are  dealt  with  by  her  at  various  times  during  the  same  period ; 
none  of  them  is  endorsed  by  her  in  her  name,  but  they  are  exchanged  on 
different  dates,  generally  for  small  purchases  which  had  been  made. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  anxious  that  you  should  bear  in  mind  this,  that,  of 
course,  the  charge  made  against  these  two  persons  is  not  that  of  abstract- 
ing her  money ;  it  is  not  a  charge  either  of  stealing  or  a  charge  of 
defrauding  Miss  Barrow  of  her  money.  But  the  reason  why  it  is  im- 
portant to  inquire  into  it  in  this  case  is  that  you  will  see,  as  I  shall 
submit  to  you  on  behalf  of  the  Crown,  and  you  will  consider  it,  that  they 
are  the  only  persons  who  at  this  time  in  September,  1911,  had  any  interest 
in  the  immediate  death  of  Miss  Barrow.  The  explanation  which  has  been 
given,  and  which  will  be  read  to  you  in  due  course,  by  the  male  prisoner 
with  reference  to  the  assignment  leasehold  interest,  is  that  he  agreed  to 
give  her  an  annuity  of  £1  a  week  for  her  life  in  exchange  for  the  interest 
which  she  had  in  this  leasehold  property,  which  was  of  the  value  of  some 
£120  a  year,  but  which  would  expire  in  about  nineteen  years.  I  am  not 
concerned,  nor  are  you,  with  inquiring  into  whether  what  he  gave  her  was 
the  precise  and  proper  amount  that  should  be  given  under  the  circumstances 
as  an  annuity  for  a  property  of  this  character.  It  does  not  matter,  and 
this  case  does  not  depend  upon  any  minute  arithmetical  calculations  as  to 
whether  he  was  dealing  with  her  fairly  or  not.  What  does  happen  is  that 
here  you  find  this  man,  who  is  (so  far  as  we  know  as  the  result  of  the 
inquiries  that  we  have  been  able  to  make)  in  possession  of  a  small  amount 
of  money,  as  his  banking  account  will  show,  arranging  to  give  this  annuity 
of  £1  a  week  to  Miss  Barrow  for  the  rest  of  her  life.  It  is  right  that  I 
should  tell  you  that  the  security  for  this  is  the  property  itself — so  long 
as  the  property  lasted,  so  long  as  the  leasehold  interest  continued,  the 
leasehold  interest  being  of  a  public-house  known  as  the  Buck's  Head  and 
a  barber's  shop  adjoining;  the  public-house  bringing  in  £105  a  year,  and 
the  barber's  shop  bringing  in  £50  a  year,  and  subject  to  a  rental  which 
she  had  to  pay  of  £20,  and  producing,  it  has  been  said,  £120 — it  is  said 
by  the  male  prisoner  himself  a  profit  rental  of  £120,  and  I  will  accept  it 
as  that;  it  is  not  necessary  to  inquire  more  closely.  For  the  £1600 
of  India  3£  per  cent,  there  is  no  document  of  any  sort  in  existence  to 
explain  what  it  was  that  the  male  prisoner  gave  her  in  exchange  for  that. 
There  is  neither  any  agreement  in  writing  nor  any  note  in  any  book  or 
any  entry  of  any  kind  or  sort  as  to  what  he  was  to  give  her  for  that 
£1600;  but,  as  you  will  hear,  within  two  months  of  Miss  Barrow  being 
in  that  house  with  them,  and  after  the  Hooks,  who  had  come  with  her  had 
left,  this  property  was  transferred  over  to  the  male  prisoner,  and,  as  I 
6 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

say,  so  far  as  any  document  shows,  for  nothing.  The  story  which  he 
has  given  with  regard  to  it,  which  it  is,  of  course,  right  that  you  should 
have  before  you  early  in  the  case,  is  this.  He  says  there  was  a  verbal 
agreement  by  which  he  bound  himself  to  pay  her  an  annuity  of  .£72,  besides 
allowing  her  to  have  the  rooms  in  this  house  without  paying  any  rent  for 
them.  The  rent  that  she  had  been  paying  for  the  rooms  was  12s.  a  week. 
That  would  amount  to  an  annuity,  according  to  him,  or  the  equivalent 
of  it,  of  about  £3  a  week.  You  will,  of  course,  observe  this,  that,  accord- 
ing to  that  story,  there  was  absolutely  nothing  in  writing,  no  record  which 
bound  the  male  prisoner  to  pay  that  annuity  in  respect  of  the  India  3£  per 
cent.  Whether  that  is  the  true  story  or  not,  of  course,  you  will  have  to 
make  up  your  minds,  or,  at  least,  you  will  have  to  consider  during  the 
course  of  the  case.  Whether  he  ever  did  agree  to  give  her  an  annuity  for 
the  India  3£  per  cent,  is  a  question  upon  which  I  shall  submit  you  will 
exercise  your  judgment  during  the  course  of  this  case;*  or  whether  it  was 
that  this  £1600  India  3£  per  cent,  was  transferred  to  him  in  consequence 
of  the  hold  which  he  had  managed  to  acquire  over  her,  and  the  confidence 
which  he  had  undoubtedly  managed  to  instil  into  her,  and  as  a  result 
she  entrusted  it  to  him  for  safe  keeping,  as  I  suggest  to  you  she  had  done 
with  the  notes  which  were  being  dealt  with  subsequently  by  these  prisoners. 
These  are  all  matters  which,  of  course,  you  will  consider  during  the  course 
of  the  case ;  but  I  want  to  point  this  out  to  you,  that  even  if  you  can  bring 
yourselves  to  accept  the  story  which  the  male  prisoner  puts  to  you,  then 
if  it  is  true,  and  if  he  had  agreed  to  give  her  this  annuity  for  the  pro- 
perties which  had  come  into  his  possession,  he  had,  of  course,  the  highest 
interest  in  getting  rid  of  her  at  as  early  a  date  as  possible ;  the  result  of 
which  would  be  that  the  annuities  would  cease,  the  capital  would  be  his 
without  any  charge  upon  it  to  do  as  he  liked  with.  My  submission  will 
be  to  you  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  that  he  is  the  only  person,  with  his  wife, 
who  had  a  common  interest  with  him  in  this — the  only  person  who  would 
really  gain  by  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow.  If  those  facts  are  correct,  then, 
at  least,  it  will  have  been  established  that  there  was  every  reason  why 
they  should  desire  her  death. 

Now,  just  let  me  tell  you  what  happened  afterwards.  During  the 
whole  time  that  she  is  ill,  which  lasts  from  1st  September  of  1911  until  the 
morning  of  14th  September,  you  will  find  that  the  female  prisoner  is 
attending  her,  and  in  attending  to  her  there  is  every  opportunity  for  the 
male  prisoner  to  go  to  her  room;  he  does  go  on  several  occasions,  and 
eventually  on  llth  September  she  makes  a  will  by  which  he  is  appointed 
sole  executor  and  trustee,  and  his  father,  who  was  living  in  the  house 
at  the  time,  is  called  in  as  a  witness.  By  that  will  of  llth  Septem- 
ber there  is  no  disposition  of  cash  or  other  property,  except  furniture, 
jewellery,  and  personal  belongings.  The  will  will  be  read  to  you  in  due 
course.  That  is  left  to  the  children,  the  orphans,  Hilda  and  Ernest 
Grant,  when  they  come  of  age.  and  the  property  meanwhile  is  to  be  kept 
by  the  male  prisoner  as  trustee.  It  is  very  little  account,  as  you  may 
imagine,  but  that  is  all  the  disposition  of  her  property  to  this  man. 

My  submission  to  you  is  that  during  the  whole  of  this  eventful  period 


*  There  is  evidence  that   Seddon  did   actually  pay  to  Miss  Barrow  the  amount 
represented  by  this  annuity  until  the  week  before  her  death. — ED. 

7 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

the  male  and  the  female  prisoners  are  those  who  have  access  to  this 
woman's  room.  There  was  a  kitchen  next  door  to  the  bedroom  which 
was  inhabited  by  Miss  Barrow ;  a  kitchen  in  which  apparently  all  her  food, 
with  one  or  two  solitary  exceptions,  was  cooked  during  the  time  that  she 
was  ill.  She  was  in  the  habit  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things  of  having 
her  meals  served  upstairs.  She  had  them  there  with  the  boy  Ernie 
Grant,  and  during  this  period  the  female  prisoner  was  attending  to  her, 
cooking  her  food  and  doing  everything  that  was  necessary  for  her,  and 
serving  her.  There  was  a  servant  in  the  house,  but  she  never  attended 
those  rooms  at  all ;  she  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  them.  The 
mother,  that  is,  the  female  prisoner,  and  the  daughter,  Maggie  Seddon, 
seem  to  have  done  all  that  was  necessary  in  the  household,  in  that  part  of 
the  house  at  any  rate. 

When  she  was  taken  ill  on  1st  September  she  had  symptoms  from 
which  the  doctor  diagnosed  that  she  was  suffering  from  epidemic  diarrhoea. 
She  vomited,  and  undoubtedly  had  considerable  diarrhoea  and  pains  in  her 
stomach.  These  continued — I  only  want  for  the  moment  to  give  you  quite 
shortly  the  story — these  continued  for  at  least  eight  or  nine  days,  but  she 
began  to  improve;  from  about  the  fifth  to  the  ninth  day  she  seemed  to 
be  improving,  and  was  attended  by  a  doctor,  Dr.  Sworn.  She  seemed 
to  be  getting  better,  but  on  the  llth,  the  day  I  have  told  you  when  she 
made  this  will,  the  doctor  had  seen  her  in  the  morning.  She  made  the 
will  in  the  evening  between  6  and  7  o'clock,  and  on  the  13th  was  again 
seen  by  the  doctor  in  the  morning.  She  became  rapidly  worse ;  she  was 
very  ill  all  the  night  of  the  13th  with  great  pain,  and  could  not  remain 
in  bed.  The  boy  Ernie  Grant,  who  slept  with  her  usually,  was  sent  down 
by  her  to  call  up  the  prisoners  because  she  was  so  ill;  and,  as  you  will 
hear,  the  boy  went  down,  and  the  prisoners  did  come  up.  This  went  on 
during  that  night  of  the  13th;  no  doctor  appears  to  have  been  sent  for, 
and  in  the  early  morning,  at  about  6  o'clock  or  a  little  after,  of  14th 
September  she  died.  Thereupon  the  male  prisoner  saw  the  doctor,  and 
obtained  from  the  doctor  a  certificate  of  death  due  to  epidemic  diarrhoea. 
He  then  saw  an  undertaker  at  11.30  in  the  morning,  and,  as  you  will  hear, 
it  was  arranged  eventually  that  the  body  should  be  removed,  and  it  was 
removed  in  the  evening  of  that  same  day,  the  14th  September,  to  the 
undertaker's,  to  a  mortuary  there,  and  the  funeral  took  place  two  days 
afterwards,  on  the  16th,  from  the  undertaker's. 

Now,  there  are  some  very  significant  facts  with  regard  to  what  happens 
after  the  death  to  which  I  desire  to  draw  your  attention.  You  will  see,  first, 
that  no  relative  was  present  at  the  funeral,  no  relative  knew  of  the  death 
until  20th  September;  she  was  buried  on  the  16th.  The  Vonderahes, 
whose  names  I  have  mentioned  to  you  before,  with  whom  Miss  Barrow 
was  living  from  1909  until  July  of  1910,  lived  in  the  immediate  neighbour- 
hood within  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of  the  house,  yet  no  information  was  given 
to  them.  A  question  arises  upon  this  to  which  your  close  attention  should 
be  given.  It  is  said  by  the  male  prisoner,  and  was  said  on  the  20th 
September — not  till  then — the  20th  or  21st  September — that  when  Mrs. 
Vonderahe  saw  him  he  then  said  that  he  had  written  a  letter  which  he 
had  posted  on  the  14th  September  to  Mr.  Vonderahe  telling  him  of  the 
death,  and  also  when  the  funeral  was  to  be.  You  will  hear  from  the 
8 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

Vonderahes  that  no  such  letter  was  ever  received  by  them.  A  copy  of  this 
letter  was  produced  by  him,  and  your  attention  will  be  directed  to  it  in 
the  course  of  the  case. 

But  now  I  want  you  to  bear  in  mind  this  further  important  considera- 
tion. When  the  male  prisoner  goes  to  the  undertaker's  on  this  day  and 
desires  to  arrange  for  the  funeral,  he  says  that  there  is  only  £4  10s.  with 
which  to  pay  for  the  funeral,  and  that  out  of  that  the  doctor's  fees  must 
come.  The  undertaker  said,  well,  for  that  amount  of  money  there  could 
only  be  the  cheapest  kind  of  funeral,  and  that  if  she  was  buried  she  would 
have  to  be  buried  in  a  public  grave,  which  means  a  grave  in  which  a  number 
of  other  persons  are  also  buried.  It  is  a  very  curious  circumstance  that 
the  male  prisoner  should  have  assented  to  that,  and  arranged  it,  knowing, 
as  he  did,  not  only  of  her  property,  but  of  the  relatives  that  she  had, 
who,  at  least,  one  would  have  thought  in  the  ordinary  course,  if  he  had 
nothing  to  conceal,  would  have  been  consulted  before  it  was  decided  to  put 
this  unfortunate  woman  into  a  public  grave.  And  it  turned  out,  as  you 
will  learn  during  the  course  of  the  case,  that  amongst  the  papers  found  after 
the  arrest  of  the  male  prisoner,  was  a  document  which  showed  quite  plainly 
that  Miss  Barrow  was  entitled  to  burial  in  a  family  vault  at  Highgate. 

Now,  just  see  what  that  means.  Let  me,  first  of  all,  make  this 
observation  to  you,  that  in  the  comment  which  I  am  about  to  make  upon 
the  conduct  of  the  male  prisoner  I  am  drawing  your  attention  to  the 
character  of  the  man  as  disclosed  by  those  incidents,  and  as  throwing  some 
light  upon  the  events  which  culminated  in  the  murder  of  Miss  Barrow. 
According  to  his  own  statement,  to  put  it  no  higher  than  that — not  to  travel 
for  a  moment  into  any  disputed  area — by  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow  he 
came  into  possession  of  all  the  property  to  which  I  have  already  called 
your  attention  which  had  been  charged  with  a  life  annuity.  If  this  was 
an  innocent  death  of  hers,  if  he  was  in  no  sense  responsible,  the  result, 
nevertheless,  follows  that  from  the  moment  her  life  came  to  an  end  he  had 
the  enjoyment  of  all  the  property  which  he  had  of  hers  when  she  came 
into  his  house  some  nine  months  before.  But,  apparently,  so  great  was 
the  cupidity  of  this  male  prisoner,  and  so  much  did  he  desire  money,  and 
the  whole  of  the  money,  that  he  seems  to  have  objected  even  to  paying 
whatever  it  might  be,  a  sovereign  or  two  extra  which  it  would  have  cost, 
to  have  given  her  a  decent  burial  notwithstanding  all  that  happened — not- 
withstanding the  enormous  profit  which,  on  his  own  statement,  if  you 
believe  him,  he  was  making  by  the  payment  of  the  annuity  ceasing  from 
that  moment. 

But  that  is  not  all.  I  do  ask  your  attention  to  this.  Can  you  conceive 
under  these  circumstances  innocent  people  not  communicating  with  the 
relatives  who  lived  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood,  within  a  quarter  of  a 
mile?  What  is  said  by  the  male  prisoner — and  I  want  to  do  full  justice 
to  what  he  has  said — is  that  he  wrote  a  letter  which  informed  the 
Vonderahes  of  the  death.  It  is  a  letter  of  14th  September.  (My  lord,  this 
is  exhibit  No.  1.)  This  is  the  letter  which,  as  I  have  explained  to  you,  was 
never  received,  but  which  he  says  was  written  and  posted.  It  is  addressed 
to  "Mr.  Frank  Vonderahe,  14th  September,  1911."  "Dear  sir, — I 
sincerely  regret  to  have  to  inform  you  of  the  death  of  your  cousin,  Miss 
Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  at  6  a.m.  this  morning  from  epidemic  diarrhoaa.  The 

9 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

funeral  will  take  place  on  Saturday  next  about  1  or  2  p.m.  Please  inform 
Albert  Edward  and  Emma  Marion  Vonderahe  "  (that  is  the  brother  and 
sister  of  Mr.  Frank  Vonderahe)  "  of  her  decease,  and  let  me  know  if  you 
or  they  wish  to  attend  the  funeral.  I  wish  also  to  inform  you  that  she 
made  a  will  on  the  llth  inst. ,  leaving  what  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda 
and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appointed  myself  as  sole  executor  for  the  will. — 
Yours  respectfully,  F.  H.  Seddon."  That  is  addressed  to  "Mr.  Frank 
Vonderahe,  31  Evershot  Road,  Finsbury  Park." 

You  will  observe  "from  that  letter,  which  he  says  he  wrote  and  posted 
on  14th  September  to  these  relatives,  that  there  is  not  the  faintest  reference 
to  this  very  important  fact  that  she  was  to  be  buried  in  a  public  grave.  I 
am  quite  sure  that  you  will  agree  in  this  as  certainly  a  characteristic 
of  life  in  this  country,  of  the  poorest,  and  perhaps  even  strongest  amongst 
those  who  are  not  rich  and  not  very  well  endowed  with  worldly  goods — 
there  is  always  the  desire  for  a  proper  funeral ;  and  the  one  thing  that  one 
would  have  expected  would  be  that  when  this  man  knew,  as  he  did,  that 
he  was  only  going  to  pay  for  a  public  grave  for  her  he  would  have  gone  to 
the  relatives,  and  if  he  had  posted  a  letter  which  did  not  contain  a  single 
reference  to  that,  at  least  before  she  was  buried,  he  would  have  taken  care 
to  have  got  the  relatives'  acquiescence — to  have  brought  the  state  of  things 
to  their  notice,  so  that  they  might,  if  they  liked,  have  said,  "  Oh,  we  will 
supplement  this  money;  we  will  pay  this  extra  £2  or  £3,  or  whatever  it 
may  be,  sooner  than  that  our  relative  should  be  buried  in  a  public  grave." 
It  is  a  subject  of  much  comment  which  I  am  submitting  to  you,  because, 
if  the  man  was  guilty  at  the  time,  the  last  thing  in  the  world  that  he 
would  want  to  do  is  to  call  the  attention  of  the  relatives  before  she  was 
buried  to  the  fact  of  her  death. 

As  I  have  indicated  to  you,  according  to  the  evidence  which  will  be 
placed  before  you,  not  one  word  was  known,  not  a  suspicion  held  by  the 
Vonderahes  of  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow  until  the  20th  September,  that  is, 
four  days  after  the  funeral  had  taken  place.  Then,  by  a  chance  circum- 
stance, an  inquiry  was  made,  and  it  was  ascertained  that  she  was  dead, 
and  on  the  21st  of  September  an  interview  takes  place  with  the  two  Mrs. 
Vonderahes,  the  wives  of  Mr.  Albert  and  Mr.  Frank  Vonderahe,  and  as 
the  result  of  that  interview  Mr.  Frank  Vonderahe  desires  an  interview  with 
the  male  prisoner.  He  has  it,  but  not  until  very  much  later,  because, 
although  he  wanted  it,  the  male  prisoner  said  he  desired  to  go  away,  and 
he  could  not  stop  at  that  time;  he  was  rather  sick  of  it,  and  he  wished  to 
go  away  for  a  holiday,  as  he  did.  But  on  9th  October  Mr.  Frank  Vonderahe 
does  see  him,  and  the  result  of  that  interview  was  that  Mr.  Frank  Vonderahe 
made  further  inquiries,  and  became  suspicious.  The  consequence  of  that 
was  that  communication  was  made  to  the  authorities,  with  the  result  thfit 
further  inquiries  were  instituted,  and  on  15th  November,  two  months  after 
the  date  of  death,  an  order  was  made  to  exhume  this  body.  Thereupon  a 
post-mortem  examination  was  made.  Then  it  was  found  that  in  the  body 
of  this  woman,  who  was  said  to  have  died  of  epidemic  diarrhoea,  there  was 
arsenic  widely  distributed.  You  will  hear  from  the  medical  testimony  that 
the  arsenic  which  was  found  in  her  body  was  the  cause  of  her  death.  So 
far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover  from  the  evidence  which  we  shall  place 
before  you,  there  is  not  the  faintest  ground  for  suggesting  that  she  was 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

taking  medicine  that  contained  arsenic,  as  we  have  been  able  to  trace  the 
medicines  which  she  was  taking,  and  that  arsenic  found  its  way  into  her 
body,  according  to  the  evidence  which  will  be  placed  before  you,  during 
the  days  of  her  illness,  and  she  must  have  died  of  a  fatal  dose  of  arsenic, 
which  mus£  have  been  administered  within  some  forty-eight  hours  of  her 
death. 

It  is  perhaps,  as  you  will  understand  when  you  have  heard  what  the 
medical  gentlemen  have  to  say  about  this,  not  very  remarkable  that  the 
doctor  did  not  discover  that  arsenic  was  being  administered,  because  the 
symptoms  during  life  would  be  very  much  the  same,  whether  she  was 
suffering  really  and  truly  from  epidemic  diarrhoea,  or  whether  she  was 
suffering  from  the  consequences  of  arsenical  poisoning,  the  symptoms 
which  would  be  present  to  the  medical  man  attending  would  be  the  same. 
But  the  fact  remains  that  this  woman  died  from  arsenical  poisoning.  The 
question  you  have  to  ask  yourselves,  and  which  is  of  much  importance  in 
this  case,  is,  who  administered  the  poison?  And  in  that  connection  you 
must  ask  yourselves  another  question,  who  could  have  administered  it  in 
that  house  but  the  prisoners?  And,  in  the  same  way,  that  question 
naturally  leads  to  the  further  one,  whose  interest  was  it  to  administer  it? 
The  answers  to  those  questions  must  necessarily  be  of  the  utmost  importance 
in  determining  what  your  verdict  will  be  in  this  case. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  anxious,  in  putting  this  case  before  you,  that  you 
should  have  all  such  details  in  the  opening  of  the  case  as  will  enable 
you  to  follow  the  evidence  as  to  see  its  bearing  at  the  time  it  is 
given.  It  is,  of  course,  of  importance  that  you  should,  not  only  for  the 
Crown,  but  for  the  defence,  and  it  is  in  the  interests  of  justice  that  you 
should  appreciate  what  actually  were  the  facts,  and  what  had  taken  place 
in  some  more  detail  than  I  have  so  far  indicated  the  story  to  you. 

The  evidence  will  show  you  this  with  relation  to  the  case  and  to  what 
had  happened  shortly  before  Miss  Barrow  was  taken  ill  on  1st  September. 
You  will  find  that  during  the  whole  period  of  her  stay  in  this  house,  and 
certainly  from  10th  August,  when  she  was  alone  with  this  boy,  Ernie 
Grant,  and  the  prisoners  and  their  family,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  place 
the  material  before  you,  that  she  had  placed  herself  completely  in  the 
hands  of  the  prisoners.  Apparently,  until  the  moment  that  she  got  into  the 
house  at  Tollington  Park,  she  was  a  woman  of  nerve,  who  knew  how  to 
take  care  of  her  money,  who  was  of  penurious  habits,  who  saved  per- 
sistently, who  accumulated  the  moneys  which  were  coming  in  to  her  from 
this  income  which  I  have  already  directed  attention  to;  so  that  there  was 
more  and  more  money,  and  there  were  more  and  more  notes  in  the  cash 
box;  and  certainly,  according  to  some  of  her  relatives,  as  you  will  hear, 
a«  one  lady  expressed  it,  "  It  must  be  a  clever  person  who  could  have  got 
her  money  away  from  her."  During  this  period  to  which  I  have  already 
referred,  and  which  I  think  will  make  it  unnecessary  to  go  into  further 
detail  in  opening  the  case  to  you — until  the  end  of  August  she  appears  to 
have  been  able  to  go  about;  she  was  out;  she  was  actually  out  on  the 
30th  August,  1911,  which  is  the  last  date  we  trace.  During  that  month 
she  went  to  see  a  Dr.  Paul,  who  examined  her.  At  first  she  appears  to 
have  been  suffering  from  a  bilious  attack ;  that  seems  to  have  passed  away, 
and  during  the  last  two  or  three  visits  she  was  calling  upon  him,  because 

ii 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

she  was  suffering  from  a  slight  attack  of  asthma.  As  he  will  tell  you,  it 
was  quite  a  small  matter ;  there  was  no  reason  whatever  why  she  should 
stop  with  him,  and  he  treated  her  by  giving  her  medicine,  which  you  will 
hear  about,  simply  and  solely  for  this  slight  asthma  from  which  she  was 
suffering.  That  was  on  the  30th  of  August,  1911. 

Now,  there  is  one  fact  to  which  I  have  not  yet  drawn  your  attention, 
and  which  is  of  considerable  importance  in  the  case.  On  26th  August, 
a  few  days  before  she  was  seized  with  this  illness,  which  in  the  end,  at  any 
rate,  was  a  fatal  illness,  the  daughter,  Maggie  Seddon,  goes  to  a  chemist's 
shop  in  the  neighbourhood  and  purchases  a  packet  of  Mather's  fly-papers, 
which  are  known  and  described  on  the  envelope  which  contains  the  fly- 
papers as  "  Arsenical  fly-papers."  They  are  also  labelled  "  Poison." 
Caution  is  given  to  remove  always  the  plate  containing  these  papers  from 
the  reach  of  children,  and  care  is  taken  to  show  that  they  are  undoubtedly 
dangerous.  A  packet  of  these  papers  contains  six  fly-papers.  Each  fly-paper 
not  only  contains  enough,  but  more  than  enough,  to  kill  an  adult  person. 
I  am  speaking  not  only  of  what  is  actually  in  the  paper,  and  which  may 
be  extracted  scientifically  from  the  paper,  or  which  may  be  ascertained 
by  careful  and  precise  and  exhaustive  analysis,  but  also  from  what  would 
result  from  any  person  taking  one  of  these  papers,  or  two  or  three,  as  the 
case  might  be,  and  simply  boiling  them  in  a  small  quantity  of  water;  the 
result  would  be  that  the  arsenic  in  that  water  would  be  enough,  and  more 
than  enough,  to  kill  any  person  who  took  it.  Arsenic  apparently  is  taste- 
less, and  it  has  no  smell;  even  when  it  is  the  result  of  the  boiling  of  a 
paper  in  a  small  quantity  of  water,  it  has  no  taste  and  no  smell.  It  can 
be  administered  without  fear  of  detection  in  any  liquid  which  has  anything 
like  the  colour  of  the  water  which  would  be  the  result  of  the  boiling  up 
of  the  paper.  It  would  not  be  colourless,  because,  as  you  will  have 
explained  to  you  more  fully  in  further  detail,  if  you  boil  one  of  these  papers 
in  water,  or  even  if  you  soak  it  in  cold  water,  the  result  will  be  that  the 
arsenic  which  is  extracted  does  not  itself  colour  the  water,  but  the  colour 
of  the  paper  is  also  abstracted  into  the  water,  and  the  consequence  of  it  is 
that  you  get  a  coloured  water  which  contains  the  arsenic.  If  it  were  not 
for  the  colour  in  the  paper  there  would  be  no  colour  at  all  in  the  water, 
and  you  would  have  the  water  with  the  arsenic  in  it  quite  colourless,  so  that 
the  colour  that  you  get  is,  as  I  have  explained  to  you,  the  result  of  the 
paper,  and  not  of  the  arsenic. 

Now,  you  will  hear  that  her  food  was  given  to  her  by  the  female 
prisoner.  It  was  cooked  in  the  kitchen  on  this  second  floor.  To  make  it 
quite  clearly  understood  of  what  these  rooms  consisted,  there  were  three 
windows  on  the  second  floor,  two  windows  were  in  the  bedroom  which  was 
occupied  by  Miss  Barrow,  the  kitchen  was  in  the  room  adjoining,  and  had 
the  other  window  of  these  three  which  faced  the  front.  At  the  back  of 
the  house  on  this  floor  was  another  bedroom,  at  the  rear  of  Miss  Barrow's 
bedroom,  which  had  originally  been  occupied  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook,  but 
when  they  left  it  had  not  been  occupied  for  a  considerable  time.  Then 
there  was  a  small  bedroom,  which  was  sometimes  used  by  the  boy,  Ernie 
Grant,  but  mostly  he  slept  with  Miss  Barrow. 

Now,  the  food  which  was  given  to  Miss  Barrow  contained,  amongst 
other  things,  the  ordinary  kind  of  things  which  an  invalid,  or  a  person  of 
12 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

that  character  who  is  ill,  would  take,  such  as  Valentine's  meat  juice;  you 
may  know  how  that  is  given — in  the  form  of  a  liquid — and  tea  was  taken. 
You  could,  without  difficulty,  place  arsenic  which  was  in  this  coloured  water 
by  pouring  the  coloured  water  either  into  the  tea  or  into  the  Valentine's 
meat  juice,  or  into  any  other  food  which  was  being  given,  so  long  as  it  was 
not  sufficient  to  discolour  the  food — so  long  as  it  was  not  sufficient,  at  any 
rate,  to  call  the  attention  of  the  sick  person  to  the  change  of  colour.  Now, 
I  am  not  going  to  delay  you  with  any  lengthy  description  of  the  scientific 
evidence  which  you  will  hear  upon  this;  but  in  the  result  I  shall  submit 
to  you  the  fact  will  be  established  according  to  the  tests  which  have  been 
made  by  the  most  skilled  experts  beyond  all  doubt  that  arsenic  was  widely 
distributed  in  the  body,  and  that  she  therefore  died  from  the  administering 
of  arsenic,  and  then  you  have  to  face  the  question  of  who  administered  it? 

During  the  whole  of  this  period — during  this  eventful  time — no  one  else 
(except  for  the  visit  of  the  father  on  llth  September,  when  he  merely 
came  up  to  witness  the  will),  no  one  else  appears  to  have  gone  into  this 
room  at  all,*  and  Miss  Barrow  herself,  you  will  observe,  never  was  out — 
never  was  well  enough  to  go  out — from  1st  September  to  14th  September, 
and  from  the  quantity  of  arsenic  which  was  found  in  the  stomach  and  in 
the  intestines  it  will  be  made  clear  to  you  that  this  arsenic  must  have  been 
taken — at  least  the  last  dose,  the  dose  which  proved  fatal — within,  as  I 
have  said,  forty-eight  hours  of  the  death.  You  will  also  hear  that  so  much 
arsenic  was  in  the  body  that  not  only  was  it  found  in  the  organs  to  which 
I  have  called  your  attention,  and  in  the  other  organs,  but  it  was  even  found 
in  the  hair,  it  was  found  in  the  nails,  and  it  was  found  wherever  an  expert 
would  expect  to  find  it,  and  wherever  a  man  who  is  skilled  in  the  effect 
of  poison  would  look  for  it,  and  would  naturally  expect  to  find  it  if  the 
poison  had  been  administered.  As  to  that,  the  evidence  will  be  before 
you,  and  you  will  have  the  opportunity  of  hearing  it  tested  by  my  learned 
friends,  and  you  will  have  also  the  advantage  of  hearing  it  explained  by 
the  witnesses  in  the  box. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  a  little  more  precisely 
to  what  happens  immediately  after  the  death.  The  14th  September  is 
undoubtedly  a  day  of  very  great  importance — I  mean  the  events  of  that 
day  after  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow,  and  I  want  your  attention  to  what 
happened  on  that  day.  I  have  told  you  already  about  the  male  prisoner 
having  gone  to  the  doctor  at  7  o'clock,  and  I  have  told  you  about  his 
having  gone  to  the  undertaker.  The  afternoon  was  spent  in  this  way.  It 
was  a  Thursday,  and,  as  I  told  you  when  I  started  my  address  to  you, 
Thursday  was  usually  the  day  the  male  prisoner  settled  up  the  week's 
takings  and  business  with  the  insurance  company  in  which  he  was  employed. 
On  that  date  a  Mr.  Taylor  and  a  Mr.  Smith  came  to  his  house  and  saw  him 
in  the  basement,  which  was  his  office  where  they  habitually  saw  him,  and 
there  they  proceeded  to  the  settlement  of  the  week's  business.  Suffice  it 
to  say,  that  that  represented  a  sum  of  between  £50  and  £60  which  had 
been  taken  in  gold  or  in  silver  during  that  week,  which  would  be  paid  by 
the  canvassers  to  him,  the  male  prisoner,  as  the  result  of  their  takings 
during  the  week,  and  for  which  he  would  have  to  account,  after  deducting 


*  Dr.  Sworn  was  attending  her  regularly. — ED. 

13 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

liis  commission,  to  his  employers,  who  were  represented  by  Mr.  Taylor  and 
Mr.  Smith.  That  was  the  ordinary  routine  of  the  business.  We  are  not 
in  this  case  concerned  with  it,  except  upon  this  one  date,  because  upon  this 
date,  in  the  afternoon  of  this  day,  the  male  prisoner  was  seen  by  Mr. 
Taylor  and  Mr.  Smith  in  the  possession  of  at  least  two  hundred  sovereigns 
in  gold.  His  banking  account  does  not  enable  you  to  ascertain  whence  those 
sovereigns  had  come;  in  fact,  it  is  quite  clear  that  they  were  not  drawn 
from  that  banking  account.  There  is  no  means,  so  far  as  we  are  aware, 
of  explaining  where  those  two  hundred  sovereigns  came  from,  except  that 
I  shall  make  the  suggestion  to  you  for  your  consideration,  that  those  two 
hundred  sovereigns,  or  about  that  sum,  was  the  money  which,  on  the  19th 
June  of  the  same  year,  1911,  Miss  Barrow  had  drawn  out  of  the  savings 
bank  where  it  had  been  deposited,  and  for  which  she  was  receiving  interest 
for  many  years.  Why  she  drew  it  out  we  are  unable  to  say.  I  shall 
suggest  again  to  you  that  she  went  there  with  the  female  prisoner,  and 
that  it  was  only  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  apparently  that  was  being 
pursued  of  getting  into  their  hands  the  whole  of  the  property  of  this 
deceased  woman.  There  was  the  £216  at  this  savings  bank  which  was 
drawn  out  on  this  19th  June,  and  it  was  paid  out  in  gold  apparently,  it  is 
suggested,  because  of  some  doubt  or  some  anxiety  which  had  been  aroused 
in  the  public  mind  by  the  failure  of  a  bank.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  doubt 
about  this,  it  was  paid  out  in  sovereigns.  What  became  of  that  money 
there  is  not  the  faintest  evidence  to  show,  unless  it  was  this  two  hundred 
sovereigns  and  odd  which  were  found  in  the  possession  of  the  male  prisoner 
in  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  September. 

At  the  same  period,  on  15th  September,  immediately  after  her  death — 
I  will  not  say  whilst  her  body  is  still  lying  in  the  house,  because  it  had 
been  removed  on  the  night  of  the  14th  to  the  mortuary,  but  before,  at 
any  rate,  she  was  buried — he  goes  to  a  jeweller  in  the  neighbourhood  and 
takes  with  him  a  ring,  which  was  a  ring  which  had  belonged  to  Miss 
Barrow,  which  he  desires  to  have  made  larger ;  he  also  takes  with  him  a 
watch  which  undoubtedly  was  in  the  possession  of  Miss  Barrow,  which  had 
the  name  of  her  mother  engraved  on  it,  "  Eliza  Jane  Barrow."  He  takes 
this  to  the  jeweller  to  erase  that  name  and  put  a  gold  dial  or  a  coloured 
dial  instead  of  the  plain  white  dial  which  had  been  on  the  face  of  the 
watch.  Neither  of  these  articles  appears  in  the  inventory  of  the  jewels 
which  were  left,  and  which  eventually  come  into  the  possession  of  Hilda 
and  Enaest  Grant  when  they  come  of  age  under  the  will.  It  is  right 
to  say  with  reference  to  that,  that  the  female  prisoner  when  asked  about  this 
said  that  the  watch  was  a  present  to  her,  and  that  that  was  the  explana- 
tion of  the  husband  taking  it  to  the  jewellers.  Well,  gentlemen,  that 
fact  is  one  which  you  will  take  into  account.  In  itself  certainly  I  should 
not  desire  to  make  too  much  of  it;  but,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the 
other  facts  and  circumstances  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention,  does 
it  not  seem  a  little  odd,  if  it  had  been  made  a  present  to  her  and  there 
was  nothing  to  conceal,  that  before  even  the  body  had  been  consigned  to 
the  earth  she  was  having  it  taken  to  the  jewellers  to  have  the  name  erased  1 
Might  you  not  ask  yourselves  also,  why  erase  the  name  at  all?  Then, 
again,  within  a  few  days,  within  two  or  three  days,  of  her  death  you  will 
find  the  male  prisoner  paying  for  shares  in  a  building  society,  with  which, 
14 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

somehow,  he  was  connected,  and  paying  for  three  shares  a  sum  of  £90  in 
sovereigns.  Altogether,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  trace,  payments 
are  made  of  at  least  over  £150  in  gold  during  these  very  few  days  which 
elapsed  immediately  upon  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow,  for  which  we  are 
wholly  unable  to  account  either  from  his  bank  book  or  from  his  savings 
bank  book.  He  had  apparently  two  accounts.  He  had  an  account  at  a 
local  branch  of  the  London  and  Provincial  Bank,  and  he  had  also  an 
account  at  a  savings  bank.  None  of  this  money  appears  to  have  come 
from  there,  and  this  money  does  not  appear  to  have  gone  into  there;  but 
there  it  is  dealt  with  by  him.  So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  trace 
with  all  the  careful  inquiry  that  has  been  made,  with  the  exception  of  a 
small  amount  which  has  been  paid  in  with  some  business  money  on  the 
15th  which,  according  to  the  view  which  we  present  to  you,  was  some  of 
the  gold  which  he  had  got  from  Miss  Barrow's  money  (this  £200  odd),  and 
also  a  sum  of  either  £25  or  £30,  which  is  paid  into  the  savings  bank 
within  a  few  days,  and  the  £90  which  was  paid  in  gold  for  the  shares  for 
the  building  society,  also  within  this  very  short  period  immediately  after 
the  death — with  those  exceptions  we  are  unable  to  trace  what  has  become 
of  the  money.  But  that  will  account  for  something  like  £150.  I  am 
not  able  to  give  you  the  exact  amount,  but  it  is  very  near  £150. 

Now,  one  question  which  will  have  suggested  itself  to  you,  I  have  no 
doubt,  already  is,  if  this  was  not  the  money  which  belonged  to  Miss 
Barrow,  of  which  the  male  prisoner  was  found  in  possession  that  afternoon, 
what  had  become  of  it?  She  was  in  the  habit,  as  you  will  hear,  and  as 
I  have  already  told  you,  of  keeping  gold  in  a  cash  box.  What  had  become 
of  the  £400  which  was  in  the  cash  box  when  she  went  into  the  prisoner's 
house  in  July  of  1910?  As  I  have  explained  to  you,  we  know  that  the 
notes  had  got  into  their  possession ;  and  I  suggest — but  I  tell  you  that 
I  am  not  able  to  trace  it — that  equally  the  gold  had  found  its  way  into 
their  possession  too ;  and  with  regard  to  the  £216  which  had  been  drawn 
in  June  and  brought  home  by  her  to  the  house  there  is  not  the  faintest 
ground,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  put  before  you  from  the  inquiries  which 
have  been  made  on  behalf  of  the  Crown,  for  suggesting  that  that  money 
had  been  dealt  with  in  any  other  way;  and,  again,  so  far  as  we  know, 
there  is  no  other  means  of  explaining  how  it  was  that  the  male  prisoner 
found  himself  in  possession  of  this  large  sum  of  gold  in  the  afternoon  of 
this  busy  day  when  he  was  arranging  for  the  funeral  of  this  woman  who 
had  died  in  his  house  on  that  very  morning,  except  that  it  had  come  out 
of  that  cash  box.  According  to  his  statement,  and  according  to  a  state- 
ment which  he  handed  to  the  relatives,  there  was  no  cash  at  home  except, 
as  I  have  pointed  out  to  you,  this  sum  of  £4  10s. ;  according  to  another 
document  (so  that  I  may  put  everything  before  you  that  he  had  said  with 
regard  to  it)  it  is  put  as  a  sum  of  £4  10s.  found,  either  in  the  cash  box 
or  near  there,  and  £5  10s.  which  was  found  in  the  drawer,  that  is,  £10 ; 
and  then  there  is  an  explanation  given  of  how  that  £10  was  spent.  But 
except  for  those  trifling  sums — at  the  utmost  therefore  this  sum  of  £10 — 
there  is  not  the  faintest  suggestion  or  explanation  of  what  had  become 
of  all  this  money. 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  that  state  of  things  the  inquest  took  place  on  the 
23rd  of  November;    it  began  on  that  day.        At  the   inquest  the  male 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

The  Attorney-General 

prisoner  gave  some  evidence,  which  will  be  read  to  you.  The  substance 
of  it  I  have  dealt  with  when  I  have  been  explaining  to  you  in  dealing  with 
these  various  dates  and  events  what  the  explanation  has  been  that  the 
male  prisoner  has  put  forward.  His  evidence  will  be  read  to  you  in 
detail,  and  you  will,  of  course,  give  it  the  most  careful  consideration.  I 
shall  refrain  for  the  moment  from  making  any  further  comment  with 
regard  to  it.  But  I  desire  now  to  direct  your  attention  to  what  happened 
as  the  result  of  the  inquest  and  the  post-mortem  examination.  The 
inquest,  as  I  say,  began  on  23rd  November;  it  was  adjourned,  and  was 
not  resumed  till  14th  December ;  but  on  4th  December  the  male  prisoner 
was  arrested,  and  this  is  what  he  said  when  he  was  arrested.  I  invite 
your  attention  to  it.  Inspector  Ward  told  him  that  he  arrested  him  for 
the  murder  of  Miss  Barrow  by  administering  arsenic.  He  said,  "  Absurd! 
What  a  terrible  charge,  wilful  murder !  It  is  the  first  of  our  family  that 
have  ever  been  accused  of  such  a  crime.  Are  you  going  to  arrest  my 
wife  as  well?  If  not,  I  would  like  you  to  give  her  a  message  for  me. 
Have  they  found  arsenic  in  the  body?  She  has  not  done  this  herself.  It 
was  not  carbolic  acid,  was  it?  as  there  was  some  in  her  room,  and  Sam'tas 
is  not  poison,  is  it?  "  Then  he  repeated  the  word  "  murder  "  several 
times  on  the  way  to  the  station.  Now,  that  is  a  rather  remarkable 
statement,  even  making  every  allowance  for  the  state  of  mind  of  a  man 
who  is  arrested.  It  is  a  little  difficult  to  understand  why  he  should  ask, 
"  Are  you  going  to  arrest  my  wife  as  well?  "  He  says,  "  Have  you  found 
arsenic  in  the  body?  "  then  he  goes  on.  When  he  is  taken  to  the  police 
station  he  is  left  in  charge  of  the  sergeant  there,  and  he  says  this, 
"Poisoning  by  arsenic — what  a  charge!  Of  course,  I  have  had  all  her 
money  affairs  through  my  hands,  but  this  means  Police  Court  proceedings 
and  a  trial  before  jury ;  but  I  think  I  can  prove  my  innocence.  I  know 
Miss  Barrow  had  carbolic  in  her  room,  but  there  is  no  arsenic  in  carbolic." 
That  is  his  statement,  and  it  is  right  that  you  should  have  before  you 
the  view  that  he  gave,  whatever  it  was,  when  the  arrest  took  place. 

On  15th  January,  the  inquest  having  meanwhile  proceeded  further, 
the  female  prisoner  was  arrested.  All  she  said  when  she  was  arrested 
was,  "Very  well." 

Now,  gentlemen,  after  that  somewhat  brief  outline  of  the  facts  of  this 
case  into  which  you  will  have  to  inquire,  I  shall  proceed,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  my  learned  friends,  to  call  the  evidence  in  order  to  prove  before 
you  in  the  proper  and  regular  way  in  a  Court  of  justice  what  I  have 
opened  to  you  as  to  what  will  be  proved  by  the  witnesses  on  behalf 
of  the  Crown.  Gentlemen,  I  would  ask  you  to  bear  this  in  mind  through- 
out this  inquiry.  It  is  important  in  the  interests  of  justice,  and  important 
in  the  interests  of  the  defence,  that  you  should  keep  clearly  before  you 
that  the  charge  which  is  made  is  a  charge  made  against  both  the  prisoners ; 
that  at  the  end  of  this  case,  at  the  end  of  the  evidence — subject  to  any  ex- 
planation that  may  be  put  forward  by  my  learned  friends,  and  subject,  of 
course,  to  the  direction  of  law  from  my  lord,  and  to  the  assistance  which 
you  will  get  from  my  lord  in  the  consideration  of  the  evidence,  you  will 
then  have  to  determine  whether  you  are  satisfied  that  both  of  these 
prisoners  committed  this  murder.  I  say  to  you  at  once,  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  upon  which  the  criminal  law  is  administered  in  this 
16 


Opening  Speech  for  Prosecution* 

The  Attorney-General 

country,  that  if,  as  the  result  of  the  evidence  which  is  put  forward  to  you 
on  behalf  of  the  Crown,  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  reason- 
able doubt  of  the  guilt  either  of  one  or  of  the  other,  or  it  may  be  both, 
why,  gentlemen,  if  you  have  a  reasonable  doubt,  the  prisoners  are  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  it.  But,  equally  if,  when  you  have  considered  the 
evidence  in  all  its  bearings,  and  heard  everything  that  is  to  be  said  in  their 
favour  by  my  learned  friends — if,  as  the  result  of  it  all,  the  conviction  is 
forced  upon  your  minds,  from  the  consideration  of  the  evidence,  that 
either  the  two  prisoners,  or  one  of  them,  was  responsible  for  the  adminis- 
tering of  the  poison  to  Miss  Barrow,  it  will  be  your  duty  to  say  so ;  it  will 
be  your  duty  to  give  effect  to  the  conviction  of  your  minds.  It  is  your 
duty  to  do  justice  in  this  case,  bearing  always  in  mind,  as  I  have  indicated 
to  you,  that  the  conviction  must  be  brought  home  to  your  minds  before 
you  should  find  a  verdict  either  against  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
prisoners. 


Evidence  for  the  Prosecution. 

PERCY  ATTBRSAL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVBRS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  Police 
Constable  266  of  the  E  Division.  I  am  accustomed  to  making  plans.  I 
now  produce  exhibit  6,  a  plan  made  by  me  of  the  neighbourhood  of  63 
Tollington  Park,  North.  That  plan  is  correct  and  drawn  to  scale. 
Evershot  Road  is  a  turning  out  of  Tollington  Park.  Upon  the  plan  I 
show  No.  63  Tollington  Park  and  also  No.  31  Evershot  Road,  the  dis- 
tance between  the  two  places  being  244  yards.  I  also  show  on  the  plan 
160  Corbyn  Street,  which  is  433  yards  from  63  Tollington  Park.  I 
produce  exhibit  43,  which  is  a  plan  showing  the  interior  of  the  house 
63  Tollington  Park.  In  the  basement  there  is  a  large  room  in  front, 
which  can  be  approached  from  the  street  without  going  through  the  front 
door,  going  down  the  basement  steps,  and  there  is  also  a  back  kitchen. 
On  the  ground  floor  there  are  two  rooms.  On  the  first  floor  there  are 
two  bedrooms,  one  front  and  one  back,  and  on  the  second  floor  there  is  a 
bedroom  looking  over  the  front  and  what  is  marked  as  a  kitchen  next  to 
it ;  at  the  back  there  are  a  bedroom  and  a  small  bedroom.  I  also  produce 
exhibit  27,  a  plan  on  a  larger  scale  of  the  front  room  in  the  basement 
of  63  Tollington  Park.  (Copies  of  exhibit  43  were  handed  to  the  jury.) 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Just  take  the  plan  of  the 
basement  for  the  moment.  Where  you  have  got  "  Table  "  marked  in  the 
extreme  north  at  the  top,  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  a  shelf,  is  there  not, 
over  that  table,  and  a  cupboard — not  a  shelf — next  to  the  safe?  You 
have  marked  "shelf"  next  to  the  safe;  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  a  cup- 
board?— The  shelf  is  in  the  cupboard. 

It  is  an  enclosed  shelf? — Yes. 

The  same  answer  applies  here ;  this  lower  shelf  is  an  enclosed  cup- 
board?— That  is  so. 

ROBERT  ERNEST  HOOK,  examined  by  Mr.  Mum — I  am  an  engine-driver, 
and  I  live  near  St.  Austell,  in  Cornwall.     I  had  known  the  late  Miss  Barrow 
since  1896.     At  that  time  she  was  living  with  my  mother  at  Edmonton. 
B  17 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

I  could  not  say  the  exact  date  when  she  went,  but  she  stayed  with  my  mother 
until  she  died  in  1902,  and  then  she  went  to  my  sister,  Mrs.  Grant,  at 
43  Roderick  Road,  Hampstead.  My  sister's  husband  was  alive  at  this  time ; 
he  died  in  October,  1906.  At  that  time  I  was  living  at  my  sister's  house. 

Did  you  ever  see  any  money  that  Miss  Barrow  had  in  her  possession 
while  you  were  in  your  sister's  house? — Yes.  That  was  in  October,  1906;  I 
helped  Miss  Barrow  then  to  count  it. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Please  answer  the  question  and  do  nothing 
else;  you  will  get  into  trouble  if  you  do  not. 

Examination  continued — You  said  you  did  something  with  regard  to 
that  money;  what  was  it  you  did? — I  helped  to  count  it. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  see  why  I  spoke.  These  people  are  being 
tried  on  a  capital  charge.  It  might  possibly  be,  if  you  do  more  than  answer 
the  question  or  make  any  remark,  you  might  be  doing  or  saying  something 
which  would  not  be  evidence,  and  then  the  trial  might  have  to  be  begun 
all  over  again. 

Examination  continued — It  was  gold  that  we  counted;  it  was  all  loose 
when  we  started  to  count  it,  and  it  was  afterwards  put  into  bags.  All 
these  bags  were  blue  and  white,  as  far  as  I  can  give  the  colour.  There 
was  £20  put  in  each  of  ten  blue  bags;  there  was  £50  put  in  one  white 
bag  with  two  two-shilling  pieces  in  it,  £30  put  in  one  with  three  pennies  in 
it,  £20  put  in  one  with  "  £20  "  written  in  ink  upon  the  bag,  and  then 
there  were  two  bags  containing  £120.  I  could  not  say  how  much  was  put 
in  each  of  these  two  bags.  The  total  sum  in  these  bags  was  £420  4s.  3d. 
Then,  besides  that  coin  there  were  bank  notes,  but  we  did  not  count  these. 
The  bags  and  the  bank  notes  were  put  in  the  cash  box,  which  I  now 
recognise  as  exhibit  No.  2.  My  sister,  Mrs.  Grant,  died  in  1908. 

Up  to  the  time  of  her  death  Miss  Barrow  was  living  with  her  at 
Walthamstow,  53  Wolseley  Avenue.  After  my  sister's  death  she  lived  with 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Kemp  at  38  Woodsome  Road.  Just  after  I  got  married,  on 
7th  February,  1909,  she  left  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Kemp  and  went  to  live  with  a 
cousin,  Frank  Vonderahe,  at  31  Evershot  Road.  I  saw  Miss  Barrow  at  the 
cousin's  house  and  also  at  my  house  at  Hampstead.  She  lived  with  the 
Vonderahes  up  to  the  time  we  removed  to  63  Tollington  Park,  which  was 
somewhere  about  26th  July,  1910.  I  moved  my  furniture  into  the  house 
first,  and  Miss  Barrow  also  moved  with  my  assistance  on  the  same  day. 
My  sister  had  two  children,  Hilda  and  Ernest,  a  girl  and  boy.  After  my 
sister's  death  Ernie  was  living  with  Miss  Barrow,  and  Hilda  was  living 
with  me.  When  Miss  Barrow  moved  in  to  63  Tollington  Park  Ernie  went 
in  with  her;  he  had  been  living  with  Miss  Barrow  since  his  mother's  death 
in  1908.  The  girl  Hilda  was  down  at  St.  Margaret's,  at  an  orphanage 
there.  Ernie  and  Miss  Barrow  were  on  the  best  of  terms.  He  was  about 
seven,  or  he  might  have  been  eight,  at  the  time  they  moved  to  63  Tollington 
Park. 

Had  you  and  your  wife  made  any  arrangement  with  Miss  Barrow  as  to 
what  rent  you  were  to  pay  when  you  moved  into  Tollington  Park? — Yes,  the 
arrangement  was  that  we  should  live  rent  free,  and  my  wife  was  to  teach 
Miss  Barrow  housekeeping  and  cooking.  That  was  the  only  arrangement 
that  was  made. 

After  the  time  when  you  counted  the  money,  and  it  was  put  into  that 
18 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

cash  box,  did  you  ever  see  the  cash  box  or  the  money  again? — Oh,  yes,  I 
saw  it  several  times.  The  first  time  I  saw  it  was  at  Walthamstow,  and 
the  next  time  I  saw  it  was  at  31  Evershot  Road.  I  saw  it  on  three  different 
occasions  at  31  Evershot  Road.  I  cannot  say  how  many  times  I  saw  it  at 
Walthamstow;  I  saw  it  a  great  many  times.  I  also  saw  it  at  63  Tollington 
Park.  I  saw  it  open  in  this  manner  twice  (describing)  with  these  lids 
open.  That  is  where  the  blue  bags  were.  I  saw  the  blue  bags  with  the 
£20  in  them.  I  did  not  see  anything  else  on  that  occasion;  I  do  not  think 
there  was  anything  else  I  could  see,  because  the  bank  notes  were  under 
this  tray.  That  is  all  I  saw. 

For  what  purpose  do  you  know  was  the  cash  box  opened  on  that 
occasion? — It  was  through  Miss  Barrow  going  to  get  money  out  of  it;  but 
it  was  a  usual  thing  for  me  to  see  her  go  to  this  cash  box. 

But  when  you  saw  it  at  Tollington  Park  do  you  remember  what  the 
occasion  was  of  her  opening  it  then? — Yes,  to  put  her  money  in.  In  this 
end  of  the  box  under  the  tray  Miss  Barrow  always  had  a  bag  there,  which 
she  termed  an  odd  bag ;  I  asked  her  what  she  meant  by  an  odd  bag,  and 
she  said  for  everyday  use ;  and  she  took  money  out  of  her  purse  and  put  it 
into  this  bag.  I  dare  say  I  saw  it  half  a  dozen  times  at  Tollington  Park. 

What  did  you  see  in  it  at  Tollington  Park? — I  saw  the  money,  the 
ordinary  packages,  and  my  late  brother-in-law's  watch  and  chain  were 
in  it. 

Anything  else? — And  the  notes.  Miss  Barrow  had  four  rooms  on  the 
second  floor  or  on  the  top  floor  at  Tollington  Park.  They  were  used  as 
two  bedrooms  and  a  kitchen,  and  one  was  not  furnished  at  all.  My  wife 
and  I  had  the  big  room.  Ernie  Grant  slept  with  Miss  Barrow.  My  wife 
and  I  stayed  at  63  Tollington  Park  for  fourteen  days ;  we  went  in  on  the 
Tuesday  before  August  Bank  Holiday,  and  left  on  the  Tuesday  week 
following. 

How  was  it  you  came  to  leave  63  Tollington  Park? — Well,  we  got 
ordered  out  by  Seddon.  On  the  Saturday  evening  before  we  left  Miss 
Barrow  and  I  went  out  for  a  walk;  we  went  to  the  laundry  at  Grove  Road. 
Having  my  shirts  to  fetch,  I  asked  her  if  she  would  like  to  go  walking 
with  me  to  fetch  them.  We  stopped  in  Tollington  Park  in  the  road  a  long 
time  talking  about  the  conversation  (sic)  of  her  public-house.  We  were 
out  about  two  hours,  and  then  we  returned  to  Tollington  Park.  I  was 
always  on  good  terms  with  Miss  Barrow.  Between  9  and  10  o'clock  on  the 
Sunday  night  I  got  a  written  notice  from  Miss  Barrow.  Maggie  Seddon 
gave  it  to  me. 

What  had  you  and  your  wife  been  up  to  on  the  Sunday? — We  went  to 
Barnet,  my  wife,  Ernie,  and  myself,  after  dinner  on  Sunday  afternoon,  and 
we  got  back  about  6  o'clock  in  the  evening. 

Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Miss  Barrow  yourself  when  you 
came  back? — Yes. 

Friendly  or  not? — Yes.  When  I  got  the  written  notice  handed  to  me 
by  Miss  Seddon,  I  wrote  a  reply  on  the  back  part  of  it,  on  the  extra  leaf, 
and  sent  it  back  to  Miss  Barrow.  The  next  I  heard  about  our  going  was 
Maggie  Seddon  came  up  and  told  me  that  her  father — the  male  defendant — 
wanted  to  see  me.  I  went  down  and  saw  him.  He  said  to  me,  "  So  I  see 
you  do  not  mean  to  take  any  notice  of  Miss  Barrow's  notice  ordering  you 

19 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

to  leave? "  and  I  said  "  No,  not  this  time  of  night."  He  then  gave  me  an 
order  to  clear  out  within  twenty-four  hours,  and  I  said,  "  I  would  if  I  could, 
and,  if  I  could  not,  I  would  take  forty-eight  hours."  He  said,  "  I  do  not 
know  whether  you  know  it  or  not,  Miss  Barrow  has  put  all  her  affairs  in 
my  hands,"  and  I  said  "  Has  she? "  I  asked  him  if  she  had  put  her  money 
in  his  hands.  That  seemed  to  surprise  him,  and  he  said  "  No."  I  said, 
"  I  will  defy  you  and  a  regiment  like  you  to  get  her  money  in  your  hands," 
and  he  said  that  he  did  not  want  her  money,  that  he  was  going  to  look 
after  her  interests.  That  was  all  that  was  said  at  that  time.  The  next 
thing  that  happened  was  the  tacking  of  the  notice  on  the  door  for  me  to 
quit.  That  would  be  about  half-past  one  on  the  Monday  morning. 

How  did  you  know  it  was  on  the  door? — Because  I  heard  the  rapping 
at  the  door,  and  had  a  light  in  the  room.  I  shouted,  "  Who  is  that? "  and 
he  said,  "  All  right,  Hook,  now  you  go  out  of  here  careful  and  quietly 
to-morrow."  I  did  not  just  at  that  moment  think  there  was  anything 
tacked  on  the  door;  it  was  later  in  the  night.  My  wife  was  not  very  well. 
She  was  very  restless,  and  I  had  occasion  to  get  up  and  go  out  and  get 
some  water,  and  I  saw  this  notice  tacked  on  the  door.  It  was  a  notice 
ordering  me  to  clear  out  within  twenty-four  hours,  and  signed,  "  F.  Seddon, 
landlord  and  owner."  I  left  the  house  about  10  o'clock  on  Tuesday  morning. 
I  went  back  to  the  house  the  next  day  along  with  my  brother.  That 
was  the  only  visit  I  paid  to  63  Tollington  Park  after  I  left. 

Had  you  ever  seen  any  will  of  Miss  Barrow? — Yes.  I  saw  it  in  Miss 
Barrow's  box  on  a  good  many  occasions,  and  also  in  her  hand.  The  last 
time  I  saw  it  was  at  31  Evershot  Road.  She  kept  it  in  her  trunk.  Miss 
Barrow  was  very  close  with  regard  to  money.  She  was  careful,  very  careful. 
She  did  not  spend  much. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  think  you  never  saw  Miss 
Barrow  again  after  you  left? — No. 

That  was  in  August  of  1910.  The  next  time  that  you  come  on  the 
scene  you  saw  an  account  of  the  inquest  in  the  paper,  did  you  not? — Yes. 

On  the  25th  November,  1911?— Yes. 

And  then  you  wrote  to  Chief  Inspector  Ward,  and  said  you  had  some- 
thing to  say? — I  did. 

You  have  been  in  the  army,  have  you  not? — Yes. 

Did  you  have  fever  very  badly  when  you  were  in  the  army? — I  had 
enteric  fever  in  South  Africa,  but  not  very  badly. 

Where  did  your  sister,  Mrs.  Grant,  die? — She  died  at  Walthamstow, 
63  Wolseley  Avenue,  in  1908. 

Miss  Barrow  had  been  living  with  her  ever  since  your  mother's  death 
in  1902?— That  is  right. 

When  Miss  Barrow  lived  at  your  mother's  house  had  you  lived  there 
too  ? — Yes. 

How  old  are  you? — Forty. 

So  you  were  about  ten  years  younger  than  Miss  Barrow? — Yes,  about 
that. 

Was  she  any  relation  of  yours? — No. 

I  think  you  said  before  the  magistrate  that  you  had  been  sweet- 
hearts?— Yes. 

Do  you  mean  by  that  you  had  proposed  to  marry  her? — No. 

20 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

At  the  time  that  Miss  Barrow  lived  at  your  mother's  house  did  you 
ever  see  her  in  the  possession  of  any  large  sum  of  money  then? — Yes. 

Had  she  still  got  that  little  cash  box  at  your  mother's  house? — I 
never  saw  the  cash  box  there. 

When  did  you  first  see  the  cash  box? — At  my  sister's,  Mrs.  Grant's, 
house,  in  Lady  Somerset  Road. 

Who  lived  in  the  house  at  Lady  Somerset  Road  when  Mrs.  Grant  had 
it? — Her  husband  and  two  children,  and  her  husband's  mother,  Miss 
Barrow,  and  myself ;  I  do  not  think  there  was  anybody  else. 

No  servant? — No  servant,  no. 

Miss  Barrow  at  that  time  was  an  active  person  ? — She  always  was  active 
when  I  knew  her. 

And  very  careful  about  money  ? — She  was  very  careful. 

Do  you  represent  that  she  kept  £420  in  gold,  besides  a  large  sum  of 
notes,  in  a  little  cash  box  in  a  house  of  that  description  in  Walthamstow? — 
Yes,  in  that  little  cash  box. 

What  was  the  rent  of  the  house  at  Walthamstow? — 9s.  a  week. 

It  was  quite  a  small  tenement  house? — There  were  five  rooms. 

No  servant? — No  servant. 

Miss  Barrow,  I  suppose,  had  the  usual  sort  of  trunk  or  box? — Yes,  a 
trunk  with  a  half-round  top. 

The  sort  of  thing  that  anybody  could  burst  open  with  a  chisel  in 
about  a  minute? — I  don't  know  about  a  minute;  it  might  take  them  a  bit 
longer.  I  think  the  lock  was  too  strong  for  that. 

This  woman  who  was  so  careful  of  money,  and  who,  as  you  probably 
know,  had  not  only  a  deposit  account  at  a  savings  bank,  but  an  invest- 
ment account  with  the  savings  bank? — Well,  I  don't  know  if  she  had 
an  investment  account. 

But  you  know  that  you  cannot  deposit  more  than  £200  on  deposit 
account  at  the  savings  bank? — I  knew  that. 

Did  she  ever  tell  you  about  her  money? — Yes,  otherwise  I  should  not 
have  known. 

She  trusted  you  very  implicitly  and  gave  you  all  information  about 
her  money? — Yes. 

Did  she  ever  tell  you  that  she  had  opened  a  deposit  account  at  the 
savings  bank? — Yes. 

Did  she  ever  tell  you  that  she  had  opened  an  investment  account? — 
I  don't  know  what  you  mean. 

That  is  a  sort  of  overflow  account;  when  you  have  got  £200,  and 
you  cannot  put  any  more  in  the  savings  bank,  you  cannot  deposit  any  more 
unless  you  open  what  is  called  an  investment  account ;  she  never  told  you 
that  she  had  opened  an  investment  account? — No. 

I  have  not  got  the  date  in  mind  for  the  moment,  but  would  you  be 
surprised  to  hear  that  early  in  1909  she  opened  an  investment  account? — 
Yes,  I  would. 

What  did  your  sister  die  of? — I  could  not  tell  you.  Her  husband 
died  eighteen  months  before  her. 

Now,  I  have  to  ask  this  question,  I  am  sorry  to  ask  it,  but  did  not 
your  sister  die  of  excessive  drinking? — No. 

Gomel — You  had  better  get  the  death  certificate. 

21 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

She  took  a  great  deal  too  much  to  drink? — She  did. 

Miss  Barrow  took  a  great  interest  in  your  sister's  children  when  she 
died? — Yes,  and  my  sister. 

Do  you  think  that  Miss  Barrow  was  the  sort  of  person  who  would 
have  left  £420  in  gold  and  a  large  sum  of  money  in  notes  in  a  little  cash 
box  in  her  box  in  your  sister's  house? — I  do,  and  I  know  she  did  do  so,  too. 

One  does  not  like  to  say  anything  that  might  reflect  upon  the  dead, 
but  your  sister  was  a  careless  woman? — She  was  after  her  husband  died, 
yes. 

Now,  just  take  that  cash  box  for  a  moment  (handed)  and  tell  me  on 
how  many  occasions  did  you  say  you  counted  the  gold  in  this  cash  box? — 
Once. 

Only  once?— That  is  all. 

In  the  year  1906? — That  is  right. 

Was  anything  kept  at  the  bottom  except  bank  notes? — Bank  notes 
and  gold. 

Gold  at  the  bottom  ? — In  white  bags  under  that  tray. 

That  is  the  £50  bag?— Yes. 

Therefore  the  £50  bag  was  under  the  tray? — That  is  right,  and  the 
£30  and  the  £20. 

Then  was  any  gold  kept  inside  these  openings  of  the  tray? — Not  loose. 

No  gold  was  kept  in  there  loose  at  all? — No. 

There  were  three  bags  kept  in  the  bottom  ? — That  is  right. 

One  £50,  one  £30,  one  £20  ? — That  is  right. 

Then  the  tray  on  the  top? — Then  the  tray  on  the  top. 

No  gold  in  the  tray? — No  gold  in  the  tray. 

And  then  you  say  there  was  £120  in  two  bags  and  two  bags  containing 
£20  each?— Yes. 

Do  you  really  mean  to  say  you  could  get  bags  containing  gold  on 
the  top  of  that  tray  and  then  shut  the  box? — Yes. 

Was  it  in  bags  when  you  first  saw  it? — No,  it  was  on  a  dressing-table 
in  an  apron  of  hers  ;  she  had  taken  it  all  out  of  the  old  bags,  and  was 
going  to  put  it  into  new  bags.  The  £420  in  gold  was  put  into  new  bags. 

Had  you  ever  seen  so  much  in  gold  before? — No. 

Nor  since? — No. 

As  far  as  you  know  she  had  had  that  gold  some  time,  I  suppose? — Yes. 

Where  did  Miss  Barrow  go  when  Mrs.  Grant  died  in  1908? — She  went 
to  38  Woodsome  Road. 

Did  you  go  with  her  there? — I  helped  to  move  her  things  there,  and 
took  the  cash  there.  I  carried  the  cash  box  in  my  bag. 

She  was  with  the  Vonderahes  for  two  years? — I  could  not  say  the 
exact  time  she  was  with  them. 

You  called  there  several  times? — Oh,  yes,  several  times. 

And  you  saw  the  cash  box  there  and  the  bags  just  the  same? — Yes. 

No  more? — No,  I  did  not  see  any  more. 

And  no  less? — Yes,  I  saw  less. 

In  the  box? — Yes. 

What  was  it  reduced  to  at  the  Vonderahes'  time? — It  was  at  Tolling- 
ton  Park  I  found  that  out. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

But  before  we  get  to  Tollington  Park? — I  never  saw  the  bottom,  only 
the  top  bag  in  Vonderahe's  house. 

Now,  you  helped  to  move  again,  did  you  not,  from  the  Vonderahes  to 
63  Tollington  Park?— Yes. 

Who  carried  the  cash  box? — I  carried  the  cash  box. 

Was  it  left  behind,  and  did  you  go  back  for  it? — No,  we  brought  it 
with  us.  Miss  Barrow  picked  up  the  carpet  to  see  if  there  was  anything 
under  there,  I  think,  or  the  oilcloth. 

What  time  do  you  say  you  took  the  cash  box  to  Tollington  Park? — 
It  would  be  just  after  5,  as  near  as  I  can  tell  you. 

What  time  of  the  day  was  it  that  the  move  took  place? — It  would 
be  between  4  and  5. 

Did  the  man  named  Creek  help  you  to  carry  out  the  goods? — He  did. 

I  think  he  helped  you  to  unload? — He  did — him  and  his  man. 

It  was  Creek's  cart? — It  was  Creek's  cart,  yes. 

Now,  be  careful — how  do  you  say  you  carried  this  cash  box? — In  my 
hand. 

Was  it  covered  up  with  anything? — Yes,  it  was  covered  up  in  an  old 
apron  and  put  in  my  hand  bag. 

Then  it  was  in  a  bag? — Yes. 

What  sort  of  a  bag? — A  brown  bag,  about  16  inches  long. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  you  had  no  bag  with  you? — I  put  it  to  you  I  had. 

When  you  went  to  Tollington  Park? — Well,  I  put  it  to  you  I  had. 

I  am  putting  it  to  you  that  when  you  went  round  and  helped  Creek 
you  had  no  bag  in  your  hand? — I  took  this  bag  from  Tollington  Park  to 
Evershot  Road,  in  the  first  place,  to  put  the  cash  in. 

Now,  I  will  put  something  else  to  you — that  the  whole  of  this  moving 
was  done  between  12  and  3  o'clock? — Oh,  later  than  that. 

And  that  it  was  completely  finished  by  3  ? — It  was  not. 

Do  you  remember  Miss  Barrow's  holding  the  horse's  head  while  you  and 
Creek  went  into  a  public-house? — I  am  certain  she  did  not,  because  there 
is  not  a  public-house  between  31  Evershot  Road  and  63  Tollington  Park. 

Did  the  boy  and  Miss  Barrow  leave  Evershot  Road  with  you? — Yes. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  Miss  Barrow  held  the  horse's  head  while  you  and 
Creek  went  into  a  house.  If  you  object  to  "  public-house,"  I  will  say  "  a 
house  ' '  ? — I  put  it  to  you  that  she  did  not. 

During  the  whole  of  that  time  you  had  no  bag  in  your  hand? — I  had 
the  bag  in  my  hand  the  whole  time  from  the  time  we  left  Evershot  Road 
until  we  got  to  63  Tollington  Park.  Creek  brought  the  chest  of  drawers 
up,  and  the  drawers  were  put  in  the  chest,  and  then  I  put  the  hand  bag 
in  the  bottom  drawer,  and  Miss  Barrow  locked  the  drawer  and  put  the 
key  in  her  pocket. 

Will  you  swear  that  it  was  5  o'clock? — It  was  near  5  o'clock,  as  I 
can  tell  you.  I  am  not  going  to  guess  to  five  or  ten  minutes. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  it  was  within  a  few  minutes  of  3  o'clock  when 
the  moving  had  been  absolutely  finished  by  Creek? — No,  it  was  not. 

You  are  positive? — I  am  certain  of  it.  There  is  no  question  of  a 
mistake  about  that. 

Did  the  cart  and  horse  stop  anywhere  on  the  way  between  Evershot 
Road  and  Tollington  Park? — No. 

23 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

And  you  will  swear  that  all  that  time  you  had  the  bag  with  you? — I 
had  the  bag  in  my  hand. 

Did  you  and  Creek  go  into  any  house  on  the  way? — No. 

Do  you  think  this  woman  was  the  sort  of  person  who  would  keep 
gold  to  that  amount  in  the  house? — I  am  certain  of  it. 

You  are  the  only  person — I  know  of  nobody  else — who  deposes  to 
this  quantity  of  gold  having  been  kept  in  the  cash  box  by  Miss  Barrow! — 
Yes ;  that  is  why  I  interested  myself  in  it  so  much. 

Now,  let  us  come  to  your  going  to  Tollington  Park.  When  did 
you  marry — just  before  that? — I  married  on  7th  February,  1909. 

You  had  not  seen  anything  of  Miss  Barrow  except  that  you  had  called 
at  the  Vonderahes? — I  had  called  upon  Miss  Barrow,  and  Miss  Barrow  called 
upon  me. 

Had  you  taken  your  wife  to  see  Miss  Barrow  too? — Yes. 

When  you  moved  to  Tollington  Park  you  and  your  wife  were  to  give 
Miss  Barrow  lessons  in  housekeeping? — Housekeeping  and  cookery. 

And  you  were  to  have  your  rooms  rent  free? — That  is  right. 

Had  Miss  Barrow  been  in  the  habit  of  lending  you  money? — No. 

She  never  lent  you  money? — She  lent  me  30s.  to  move  my  furniture, 
I  paying  the  expense  of  moving  hers  from  Evershot  Road  to  Tollington 
Park,  and  my  own  from  29  Churchill  Road  to  Tollington  Park. 

She  lent  you  30s.   then? — Yes. 

And  you  gave  her  an  I  0  U  ? — I  have  been  told  so,  but  I  did  not 
know  it. 

Did  you  ever  sell  Miss  Barrow  any  furniture? — Yes — well,  I  exchanged 
furniture;  she  gave  me  £3  in  exchange.  I  had  the  same  pieces  of  furniture 
back  from  her.  There  was  a  double  washstand  with  a  marble  top,  and 
she  gave  me  a  single  one  in  place  of  it,  and  she  gave  me  a  small  chest  of 
drawers. 

Was  she  very  particular  about  things  of  that  kind? — She  was  very 
particular;  she  wanted  them,  and  I  was  very  hard  up — I  wanted  the  money. 

Yes,  and  you  sold  her  some  furniture  exactly  the  same  in  description  as 
what  she  sold  to  you,  but  yours  was  better  than  hers,  so  she  gave  you  £3 
as  the  difference? — Yes. 

Did  you  give  her  a  receipt  for  it? — Yes. 

When  was  that? — I  could  not  tell  you  the  date  of  it.  About  July, 
1909,  I  should  say  it  was. 

You  were  very  hard  up  all  this  time? — I  was. 

She  was  an  old  sweetheart  of  yours? — Yes. 

You  were  very  great  friends? — We  were. 

She  had  been  kind  to  you? — She  had. 

You  and  your  wife  were  going  to  live  there  rent  free? — Yes.  She 
had  taken  my  wife  and  myself  down  to  East  Grinstead  also. 

She  was  a  rich  woman? — I  considered  so. 

She  had  got  £420  in  gold  to  your  knowledge,  and  a  lot  of  bank  notes 
besides? — Yes. 

Did  you  ever  ask  her  to  help  you  when  you  were  hard  up? — I  did; 
that  is  why  she  took  these  rooms. 

It  was  rather  a  matter  of  importance  to  you,  was  it  not,  that  you 
should  have  these  rooms  rent  free? — It  was. 
24 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

So  you  went  there  with  her? — Yes. 

You  say  you  and  she  were  on  the  best  of  terms? — Yes. 

Was  she  an  eccentric  person? — No. 

Was  she  bad  tempered? — No. 

Was  she  quick  tempered? — She  might  have  been  quick  tempered,  but 
she  did  not  use  to  show  her  temper. 

She  was  very  amiable? — Yes. 

Never  cross  with  you? — No. 

Always  very  friendly? — Yes. 

In  the  notice  that  she  gave  you  to  go  did  she  say  that  you  had 
behaved  very  badly  to  her? — Treated  her  badly  that  day. 

She  said  you  treated  her  so  badly? — Yes. 

That  was  on  the  8th  August.  I  understood  you  to  say  to  my  learned 
friend  that  you  suggested  it  was  Mr.  Seddon  who  got  you  out  of  the  house? 
—He  did. 

You  thought  very  badly  of  Mr.  Seddon  then,  did  you  not? — I  did  not 
think  very  badly  of  Seddon.  I  told  him  if  he  interfered  with  her  money  he 
would  be  in  a  rough  corner.  I  said,  "  If  he  got  her  money  he  would  be 
very  clever." 

Did  you  warn  Miss  Barrow  against  Seddon? — Yes. 

Did  you  warn  her  against  letting  any  of  her  money  go  down  into  Mr. 
Seddon's  safe? — Yes. 

That  was  before  you  left? — That  was  before  I  left. 

We  will  come  back  to  that  presently.  When  Miss  Barrow  gave  you 
this  notice,  did  you  write  an  answer  back? — Yes,  on  the  back  of  it. 

Is  this  the  answer  you  wrote  back,  exhibit  No.  24 — "  63  Tollington 
Park,  8th  August,  1910  " — this  is  to  the  woman  who  had  been  your  friend? 
—Yes. 

Who  had  been  kind  to  you? — Yes. 

And  to  your  wife? — Yes. 

And  was  finding  a  home  for  you? — Yes. 

Who  had  got  one  of  the  children? — Yes. 

Who  had  been  living  either  at  your  mother's  or  sister's  for  years? — 

And  I  suppose  paying  for  her  board  and  lodging? — Yes. 

With  no  quarrel  of  any  sort.  She  writes  you  a  letter  that  you  had 
treated  her  badly,  and  that  therefore  you  must  leave.  Then  in  answer  you 
write  this — "  Miss  Barrow,  as  you  are  so  impudent  as  to  send  the  letter 
to  hand,  I  wish  to  inform  you  that  I  shall  require  the  return  of  my  late 
mother's  and  sister's  furniture  and  the  expense  of  my  moving  here  and 
away. — Yours,  R.  E.  Hook"? — That  is  right. 

Did  you  think  that  she  was  very  fond  of  the  boy  Ernie? — I  did. 

Did  you  think  she  would  suffer  very  much  if  he  went  away  from  her? — 
She  would  worry  a  lot. 

Is  that  why  you  added  this  postscript? — No. 

"  I  shall  have  to  take  Ernie  with  me,  as  it  is  not  safe  to  leave  him 
with  you  "? — Yes,  I  wrote  that  to  save  a  lot  of  trouble.  I  knew  this  letter 
had  been  dictated  by  Seddon  to  her  and  told  by  Seddon. 

She  had  only  been  in  the  house  a  week? — A  fortnight. 

25 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

Do  you  say  a  fortnight? — Very  near  it;  it  would  be  on  the  following 
day. 

"  I  shall  have  to  take  Ernie  with  me,  as  it  is  not  safe  to  leave  him 
with  you."  What  did  you  mean  by  that? — What  I  said — what  is  said  in 
there.  As  Seddon  had  got  her  under  his  thumb,  it  was  not  safe;  I  did  not 
know  what  would  become  of  the  boy. 

Do  you  really  suggest  that  Miss  Barrow  was  under  Mr.  Seddon's  thumb 
in  less  than  ten  days  after  having  met  him? — She  was. 

The  ATTORNEY-GEKERAL — Thirteen  days. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Why  was  it  not  safe  to  leave  Ernie  with  Miss 
Barrow? — Well,  it  was  not  safe  until  you  knew  what  she  was  going  to  do. 

Knew  what  she  was  going  to  do? — Because  she  was  under  Seddon's 
thumb — she  was  likely  to  do  anything. 

Do  you  know  that  Ernie  Grant  has  said  in  the  course  of  this  case  that 
he  was  happy  with  the  Vonderahes,  but  was  happier  with  the  Seddons? — 
He  might  have  been. 

And  yet  you  said  it  was  unsafe  to  leave  the  boy  with  the  Seddons? — 
Yes,  I  did. 

1  put  it  to  you  that  that  was  a  deliberate  threat  on  your  part  to  Misa 
Barrow,  that  if  she  insisted  upon  your  leaving  the  house  you  would  take 
Ernie,  and  so  you  would  hurt  her  that  way? — It  would  have  hurt  her  if  I 
had  taken  him  away. 

And  was  meant  to  hurt  her? — That  was  meant  for  her  to  consider  that 
notice. 

"  I  shall  have  to  take  Ernie  with  me,  as  it  is  not  safe  to  leave  him 
with  you,  and  he  not  to  go  out  again  to-night."  I  do  not  know  what 
the  latter  part  means.  Perhaps  you  can  explain  it? — I  did  not  know  what 
she  was  going  to  do ;  she  was  down  with  the  Seddons  at  this  time. 

I  put  it  to  you,  from  that  moment,  as  that  letter  failed  to  provide  you 
and  your  wife  with  free  lodging  and  board,  you  had  your  knife  into  Mr. 
Seddon? — I  never  had  my  knife  into  Mr.  Seddon  at  all;  I  had  never  spoken 
to  Seddon  until  he  sent  for  me  after  that  letter. 

Anyhow,  it  did  not  have  that  effect,  whether  it  was  desired  or  not? — 
No,  I  am  very  pleased  it  did  not. 

And  you  went  away? — I  did. 

As  far  as  you  knew,  this  woman  had  in  the  house  then  something  like 
£420  in  gold?— No. 

How  much  had  she? — £380,  she  told  me. 

£40  in  gold  had  been  got  rid  of  since  1906? — That  is  right. 

And  she  had  a  large  sum  in  bank  notes? — That  is  right. 

And  she  was  under  the  thumb  of  this  man  Seddon? — She  was. 

And  you  told  Mr.  Seddon,  did  you  not,  "  It  is  her  money  you  are 
after"?— I  did. 

Did  you  ever  take  any  step  of  any  sort  or  shape  during  the  thirteen 
months  that  elapsed  between  your  going  away  in  August,  1910,  and  Miss 
Barrow's  death  in  September,  1911? — No,  I  did  not;  I  went  down  to 
Cornwall  instead. 

You  never  took  any  steps  whatever  to  warn  the  Vonderahes  or  anybody 
against  his  evil  influence? — I  told  people  about  it. 

What  people? — Mr.  Shephard  and  a  Mr.  Scarnell. 
26 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

But  the  people  to  tell  about  this  would  be  the  Vonderahes,  who  were 
relatives,  living  within  a  stone's  throw? — I  cannot  say  whether  it  would 
or  not. 

You  never  yourself  thought  that  Miss  Barrow  would  leave  you  any 
money? — I  never  expected  any. 

You  knew  the  Vonderahes  and  their  address? — Yes. 

You  knew  they  were  the  nearest  relatives  Miss  Barrow  had? — I  knew 
it  was  no  good  seeing  them  after  I  could  see  she  was  under  Seddon's 
thumb;  as  they  were  just  as  helpless  as  what  I  was. 

And  yet  you  never  warned  the  Vonderahes  at  all  ? — No,  I  never  spoke 
to  them. 

During  the  thirteen  days  that  you  were  at  Tollington  Park  you  ex- 
amined this  cash  box  again,  did  you  not? — I  did  not  examine  it;  I  saw  it. 

And  you  understand  that  it  was  £40  less  then? — Yes. 

Did  you  look  after  her  at  all? — Yes. 

Therefore  it  was  a  pure  delusion  on  her  part  that  you  had  treated  her 
badly? — She  only  wrote  it  from  Seddon's  dictation. 

It  was  in  her  handwriting? — It  was  written  in  her  handwriting,  yes. 

Was  she  the  sort  of  person  who  usually  wrote  things  at  other  people's 
dictation? — She  was  on  that  night. 

Why  that  night? — She  had  been  crying  all  that  afternoon  because  we 
had  taken  Ernie  to  Barnet,  and  she  had  not  gone. 

How  do  you  know  she  had  been  crying? — Because  Seddon  told  me 
when  I  entered  the  door. 

As  regards  the  furniture  that  you  sold  to  Miss  Barrow,  was  not  that 
the  furniture  that  had  belonged  to  your  sister? — It  was. 

It  was  not  yours  at  all? — No. 

What  right  had  you  to  sell  that  furniture  to  Miss  Barrow? — To  pay 
a  quarter's  money  for  Hilda  at  St.  Margaret's  Orphanage. 

When  you  get  a  little  drink  you  get  very  excited,  do  you  not? — It 
would  entirely  depend  on  what  I  had  been  drinking. 

Since  you  had  this  fever  in  South  Africa  a  very  little  intoxicating 
liquor  will  make  you  very  excited,  will  it  not? — No. 

Are  you  a  man  with  a  very  quick  temper? — I  do  not  know  whether 
I  am  or  not. 

Did  you  say  before  the  magistrate  that  you  did  not  go  and  see  Miss 
Barrow  again  "  as  I  was  excitable  and  nervous,  and  I  did  not  know  what 
I  might  say  if  I  started  talking"? — Yes,  I  did. 

And  did  you  frighten  Miss  Barrow? — No,  not  frighten  her — never. 

Had  you  got  very  excited  with  her? — No,  I  had  never  got  very  excited 
with  her ;  there  was  no  occasion  to. 

I  think  you  were  shown  some  jewellery  before  the  magistrate  which 
you,  first  of  all,  identified  as  having  belonged  to  Miss  Barrow,  and  on  the 
second  occasion  you  said  that  you  had  made  a  mistake,  did  you  not? — No, 
I  did  not. 

I  thought  you  said  when  you  were  shown  a  piece  of  jewellery  that 
you  thought  it  belonged  to  Hilda? — Yes,  but  I  said  I  would  not  swear  to  it, 
and  then  afterwards  I  said  it  did  not. 

My  recollection  is  that  you  said  one  had  got  a  stone  in  it  and  the 

27 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

other  had  not? — That  jewellery  was  shown  to  me  on  two  different  occasione 
at  that  Court. 

I  think  on  the  last  occasion — I  am  speaking  from  memory — you  said, 
"  I  am  now  certain  it  is  not  Hilda  Grant's  "1 — That  is  the  second  time. 

Look  at  that  (watch  handed).  The  moment  that  was  shown  to  you 
you  identified  it  as  Miss  Barrow's? — Yes. 

And  you  saw  no  difference  in  it? — I  did  say  that,  yes. 

That  watch  originally  had  a  white  face? — Yes. 

Now  it  has  a  gold  face  ? — It  has  a  gold  face  now. 

Yet  you  see  no  difference,  although  its  face  is  totally  changed.  That 
is  what  you  said,  you  know? — If  I  said  it  I  must  have  said  it. 

You  did  say  it.  Now  you  can  see,  as  we  know,  the  watch  has  been 
entirely  altered  ;  it  has  had  a  white  face  changed  into  a  gold  face  ? — I  never 
knew  it  had  a  white  face. 

On  your  oath,  do  you  swear  it  is  anything  like  it? — Yes,  I  say  it  a 
dozen  times. 

And  this  little  piece  which  you  have  given  us  to-day,  and  never  gave 
us  before  about  "  It  would  take  you  and  a  whole  regiment  of  people  like 

you" ? — I  have  given  that  somewhere  before,  I  do  not  know  where  it 

was. 

I  may  have  missed  it,  but  I  thought  I  had  read  the  papers  rather 
carefully.  I  suggest  that  it  appears  in  no  paper  that  has  ever  been  made 
an  exhibit  in  this  case.  It  was  quite  an  angry  interview  with  Mr.  Seddon, 
was  it  not? — As  far  as  he  was  concerned — because  I  was  listening  to  him 
the  whole  time. 

Mr.  Dunstan  has  reminded  me  of  the  passage  about  that  watch.  "  I 
identify  the  watch,  No.  21,  by  seeing  it  so  many  times.  I  do  not  see  any 
difference  in  it  to-day"? — Yes. 

It  is  totally  different,  is  it  not — I  mean  the  gold  face  on  it  has  been 
substituted  for  an  ordinary  white  face? — Yes,  but  I  did  not  turn  the  face 
up  to  have  a  look  at  it. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  when  the  watch  was  first  handed  to  you  face 
upwards  you  did  not  look  at  it? — Yes,  I  did  look  at  it. 

What  did  you  mean  just  now  by  saying,  "  I  did  not  turn  the  face 
up  "  ? — (No  answer.) 

This  interview  with  Seddon  was  a  very  angry  interview,  was  it  not? — 
No.  I  never  spoke  to  Seddon — not  until  after  I  asked  him  if  he  was  going 
to  take  charge  of  the  money,  or  if  she  had  put  her  money  into  his  charge. 

It  was  the  same  night  as  the  notice  that  Miss  Seddon  gave  you,  that 
Seddon  sent  for  you,  was  it  not? — Yes. 

And  did  he  say,  "  I  see  you  do  not  intend  to  take  any  notice  of  this 
notice  Miss  B.  has  sent  you"? — Yes. 

And  you  said,  "No,  not  at  this  time  of  night"? — Yes. 

Did  he  say  he  would  give  you  a  proper  notice  to  get  out  in  twenty-four 
hours? — No,  he  ordered  me  to  get  out  in  twenty-four  hours. 

Did  he  not  say  anything  about  landlord  or  occupier ? — He  never 

mentioned  the  landlord  or  occupier. 

"  I  asked  if  she  had  put  her  money  into  his  hands,  and  he  said  '  No.' " 
Now,  according  to  you  to-day,  you  said,  "  I  defy  you  and  a  whole  regiment 
of  people  like  you  to  get  her  money  into  your  hands  "? — Yes. 
28 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

Did  you  also  say  this,  "I  suppose  it  is  her  money  you  are  after"? — 
Yes. 

That  was  the  last  thing  you  said  to  Mr.  Seddon? — That  was. 

And  then  you  left  the  house? — No,  I  went  to  bed. 

You  left  the  house  the  next  day? — No,  I  left  on  the  Tuesday. 

Was  it  the  next  day  that  you  went? — Yes,  it  was  the  next  day  I  went; 
that  is  right. 

Just  one  more  question;  if  you  thought  that  Mr.  Seddon  had  got  this 
woman  under  his  thumb,  and  that  she  was  in  possession  of  a  large  sum 
of  money,  and  it  was  your  view,  as  expressed  to  Seddon,  that  it  was  her 
money  that  he  was  after,  why  did  you  not  go  to  the  police? — I  did  not  see 
I  had  any  grounds  to  go  to  the  police. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  RENTOUL — You  suggest  that  Mr.  Seddon  tried 
to  influence  Miss  Barrow  against  you? — Yes. 

You  do  not  suggest,  of  course,  that  Mrs.  Seddon  ever  took  part  in 
trying  to  influence  her  against  you? — I  have  not  done  so. 

You  would  not  like  to  suggest  that? — I  would  suggest  it. 

So  you  have  changed  your  mind  since  you  gave  evidence  at  the  Police 
Court? — I  have  not  changed  my  mind;  I  never  had  that  question  put  to 
me  before. 

Let  me  read  you  one  sentence  that  I  put  to  you  at  the  Police  Court — 
"  I  believe  Mr.  Seddon  influenced  Miss  Barrow  against  me.  I  cannot  say 
Mrs.  Seddon  did"? — No,  but  I  will  say  it  now.  She  did. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — You  might  read  the  continuation  of  that 
sentence — "  I  cannot  say  Mrs.  Seddon  did.  She  did  a  lot  of  watching  and 
listening  on  the  stairs  on  Friday  night  when  I  was  talking  with  Miss 
Barrow." 

Mr.  RENTOUL — And  another  sentence. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Certainly — "  I  sent  my  wife  down  to  see  Mrs. 
Seddon,  who  was  washing  her  bedroom  floors." 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — During  the  time  when  you 
were  living  with  Miss  Barrow  at  this  house  were  you  living  on  good  terms 
with  her,  or  were  you  on  bad  terms? — Always  on  good  terms. 

Had  she  ever  before  she  went  to  live  at  Tollington  Park  kept  house  ? — 
No,  she  always  lived  in  lodgings. 

You  mean  by  that  that  she  had  paid  for  board  and  lodging? — Yes. 

You  told  us  this  time  she  was  paying  12s.  a  week  for  unfurnished 
rooms? — Yes. 

And  would  have  to  provide  her  own  food? — Food  and  furniture  and 
everything. 

Up  to  the  time  that  you  returned — I  think  you  said  at  10  o'clock  you 
received  the  notice  which  Miss  Maggie  Seddon  handed  to  you — had  you 
any  idea  that  there  was  any  quarrel  between  you  and  Miss  Barrow? — No. 

I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two  about  the  moving  to  63  Tollington 
Park.  Do  you  know  what  the  distance  is? — I  do  not  know  what  the  exact 
distance  is;  I  do  not  suppose  it  would  be  more  than  50  to  80  yards.  It  is 
quite  close. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — About  240  yards,  I  think. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — And  if  I  understand  you,  there  was  no 
public-house  on  the  way  you  went? — Not  between  the  two  houses. 

29 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Robert  Ernest  Hook 

Not  the  way  you  went? — No,  my  lord,  there  is  not  any  way  which 
you  go. 

Or  any  other  house  at  which  you  stopped? — No. 

I  suppose  you  went  the  shortest  way? — Yes,  we  turned  to  the  left; 
it  was  a  few  yards  down,  and  we  turned  to  the  right,  and  it  is  only  a  short 
distance  up  to  63  Tollington  Park. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — After  the  cart  was 
loaded,  and  before  it  began  to  move,  did  you  and  Creek  go  to  a  public- 
house? — No. 

Never? — No. 

Never  whilst  that  moving  was  taking  place  did  you  or  Creek  go  to  a 
public-house? — I  do  not  know  about  Creek.  I  did  not;  I  was  with  Miss 
Barrow  the  whole  time. 

Nor  was  there  any  interval  of  time  during  which  Miss  Barrow  held 
the  horse's  head? — No. 

That  you  swear  to? — I  will  swear  to  it. 

FRANK  ERNEST  VONDERAHE,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I 
reside  at  160  Corbyn  Street,  Tollington  Park,  Islington.  I  went  there  in 
the  June  quarter  of  1911  from  31  Evershot  Road.  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  was 
my  cousin.  She  was  in  her  forty-ninth  year  at  the  time  of  her  death.  She 
came  to  reside  with  my  wife  and  me  at  31  Evershot  Road  in  1909.  She 
lived  with  us  about  fifteen  months  before  she  went  to  63  Tollington  Park. 
Ernest  Grant  lived  with  Miss  Barrow  when  she  was  living  with  us.  Miss 
Barrow  paid  35s.  a  week  for  board  and  lodging  for  herself  and  the  boy. 
She  was  very  kind  to  the  boy. 

What  sort  of  person  was  Miss  Barrow — how  would  you  describe  her  ? — 
Well,  she  had  rather  peculiar  ways  with  her.  For  instance,  she  dressed 
rather  poor,  I  should  say,  for  her  position.  I  knew  about  her  property 
when  she  was  with  us.  She  had  £1600  3i  India  stock.  She  had  a  rental 
coming  in  from  the  Buck's  Head  public-house  of  £105  per  year,  and  a 
barber's  shop  adjoining  the  public-house  producing  £50  a  year,  and  she 
had,  I  believe,  over  £200  in  her  bank  in  Upper  Street — the  Finsbury 
Savings  Bank. 

Did  you  ever  see  a  cash  box  of  hers? — I  did. 

Have  you  seen  it  open? — Once.  I  saw  in  it  what  I  took  to  be  some 
bags  of  money,  and  I  saw  likewise  a  roll  of  bank  notes  at  the  bottom  of  the 
cash  box.  I  noticed  that  there  was  a  tray  in  the  box.  The  notes  were 
below  the  tray.  As  far  as  I  recollect  now,  I  should  say  the  bags  were  the 
same  sort  of  bag  as  you  would  receive  from  a  bank  with  say  £5  worth  of 
silver  in  it.  On  26th  July  Miss  Barrow  moved  with  the  boy  to  63  Tollington 
Park.  She  took  furniture  there  from  my  house.  I  had  nothing  at  all  to 
do  with  the  removal.  I  presume  the  cash  box  was  removed — I  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it. 

How  was  it  that  she  left? — Well,  because  she  got  dissatisfied.  After 
she  left  our  house  I  saw  her  several  times  in  the  street,  and  I  spoke  to 
her.  We  were  on  friendly  terms  when  we  met.  I  never  went  to  see  her  at 
63  Tollington  Park.  The  last  time  I  saw  her  alive  was  in  August,  1911, 
in  Tollington  Park.  I  saw  her  dead  body  about  the  commencement  of 
November,  and  identified  it  in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Willcox,  Dr.  Spilsbury, 
3° 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

and  my  brother.  When  we  moved  from  Evershot  Road  to  Corbyn  Street 
in  June  of  last  year  I  gave  notice  of  change  of  address  to  the  post  office. 
I  have  had  letters  delivered  to  Corbyn  Street  which  have  been  addressed 
to  Evershot  Road.  I  did  not  receive  any  letter  from  the  male  prisoner  in 
or  about  September  of  last  year.  I  never  received  a  letter  of  which  exhibit 
No.  1,  which  is  now  shown  to  me,  is  said  to  be  a  copy.  I  have  never 
received  a  letter  like  that  at  any  time.  [Letter  read  by  the  deputy  clerk 
of  the  Court.  See  Appendix.] 

Examination  continued — I  had  a  son  who  attended  the  Montem  Street 
School.  Ernest  Grant  attended  the  same  school.  I  had  no  notice  at  all 
of  the  burial  of  Miss  Barrow.  I  first  knew  of  her  death  on  20th  September. 

Where  did  you  get  the  information  from? — By  inquiring  at  63  Tolling- 
ton  Park. 

Just  tell  me  "  Yes  "  or  "  No  "  to  this.  Had  some  information  been 
given  to  you  before  you  called  on  that  day  at  63  Tollington  Park? — Yes. 
When  I  called  I  saw  the  servant ;  I  took  it  to  be  a  Miss  Chater.  I  asked 
to  see  Miss  Barrow,  and  she  said,  "  Don't  you  know  she  is  dead  and  buried?  " 
I  said  "  No ;  when  did  she  die  ?  "  She  said  "  Last  Saturday ;  but  if  you 
call  about  9  o'clock  you  will  be  able  to  see  Mr.  Seddon,  and  he  will  tell 
you  all  about  it."  My  wife  and  I  called  the  same  evening  about  ten  minutes 
past  9,  but  we  did  not  see  him.  I  first  saw  the  male  prisoner  on  9th  October 
at  his  house;  my  wife  had  seen  him  on  the  21st,  the  day  after  our  call. 
When  I  saw  him  there  were  present  a  friend  of  mine,  Mr.  Thomas  Walker, 
and  Mrs.  Seddon;  my  wife  was  not  present.  I  had  never  seen  him  before 
in  my  life,  but  he  seemed  to  know  me;  he  seemed  to  know  who  I  was. 
He  came  straight  up  to  me  and  said,  "Mr.  Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe?"  I 
said,  "  Yes,"  and  then,  turning  to  my  friend,  he  said,  "  Mr.  Albert  Edward 
Vonderahe?"  I  said,  "No,  a  friend  of  mine,  my  brother  not  being  well 
enough  to  come."  He  said,  "  What  do  you  want?  "  I  said,  "  I  have  called 
to  see  the  will  of  my  cousin,  and  also  to  see  the  policy."  He  said,  "  I  do 
not  know  why  I  should  give  you  any  information.  You  are  not  the  eldest 
of  the  family.  You  have  another  brother  of  the  name  of  Percy."  I  said, 
"  Yes;  but  he  might  be  dead  for  aught  I  know."  He  said,  "  I  do  not  think 
so ;  but,  if  so,  you  will  have  to  swear  an  affidavit  before  a  magistrate  that 
he  is  dead."  He  said,  "You  have  been  making  inquiries,  and  talked  about 
consulting  a  solicitor." 

That  is  what  he  said  that  you  had  been  doing? — Yes,  I  am  repeating 
his  words.  He  said,  "  It  is  about  the  best  thing  you  can  do."  I  asked, 
"  Who  is  the  owner  of  the  Buck's  Head  now?  "  He  said,  "  I  am,  likewise 
the  shop  next  door.  I  am  always  open  to  buy  property.  This  house  I  live 
in — fourteen  rooms — is  my  own,  and  I  have  seventeen  other  properties. 
I  am  always  open  to  buy  property  at  a  price."  I  asked  him  how  it  was 
that  my  cousin  was  buried  in  a  common  grave  when  she  had  a  family  vault 
at  Highgate?  He  said,  "I  thought  it  was  full  up."  I  asked,  "Who 
bought  the  India  stock?"  He  said,  "You  will  have  to  write  to  the 
Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England  and  ask  him,  but  everything  has  been 
done  in  a  perfectly  legal  manner  through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers.  I 
have  nothing  to  do  with  it." 

Was  anything  said  about  how  or  where  he  had  come  to  become 
possessed  of  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's  shop? — He  said,  "  It  was 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

in  the  open  market,"  and  that  he  bought  it.  As  I  was  leaving  I  said,  "  How 
about  this  annuity  ?  What  did  she  pay  for  it  1 "  The  answer  he  gave  me 
was,  "  Taking  into  consideration  your  cousin's  age,  if  you  will  inquire  at 
any  post  office  you  will  find  she  paid  at  the  rate  of  17  for  1,  and  she  had 
an  annuity  of  .£3  per  week  " — he  did  not  tell  me  from  whom.  I  only  knew 
about  the  annuity  through  the  letter  that  he  showed  to  my  wife,  exhibit 
No.  3,  dated  21st  September,  1910.  That  letter  is  addressed  from  "63 
Tollington  Park,  London,  21st  September,  1910,"  and  is  signed  "  F.  H. 
Seddon,  executor."  It  is  headed,  '•  To  the  Relatives  of  the  late  Miss  Eliza 
Emily  Barrow,  who  died  14th  September  inst.,  at  the  above  address,  from 
epidemic  diarrhoea,  certified  by  Dr.  Sworn,  5  Highbury  Crescent, 
Highbury,  N.  She  has  simply  left  furniture,  jewellery,  and  clothing." 
That  had  come  to  my  knowledge  through  my  wife,  and  it  was  in  consequence 
of  that  that  I  went  to  see  the  male  accused.  After  the  receipt  of  that 
letter,  and  up  to  the  time  that  I  left  him  at  that  interview  on  9th  October, 
I  had  no  knowledge  as  to  who  it  was  that  was  paying  the  annuity.  I  never 
saw  the  male  accused  again  until  after  I  saw  him  at  the  inquest.  After 
this  I  communicated  with  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions.  Exhibit 
No.  2,  which  is  shown  to  me,  is  the  box  that  I  refer  to  as  the  cash  box. 
I  know  about  the  family  vault  at  Highgate  Cemetery  in  which  Miss  Barrow's 
near  relatives  are  buried.  It  is  not  full  up. 

I  am  not  quite  sure  that  I  understood  what  you  meant  by  saying  that 
when  you  saw  the  male  accused  you  said  you  had  come  about  Miss  Barrow's 
will  and  a  policy.  What  were  you  referring  to  when  you  referred  to  the 
policy? — The  policy  which  would  insure  her  life — her  life  annuity,  according 
to  that  letter  which  you  have  just  read. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Just  a  question  about  this 
vault.  Had  you  and  Miss  Barrow  ever  spoken  of  this  vault? — Not  of  late 
years.  Of  course,  we  knew  it  was  there. 

Do  you  know  that  Miss  Barrow  was  under  the  impression  that  there 
was  no  room  for  any  further  interment  in  it1? — She  knew  different. 

You  talked  about  it  while  she  was  alive? — No. 

How  do  you  know  that  she  knew  different  if  you  had  not  talked  about 
it? — She  had  the  proof  of  the  grave  in  her  possession. 

All  the  document  says  is  that  certain  people  are  buried  in  a  certain 
grave  ? — Well. 

It  does  not  say  how  many.  Anyhow,  she  never  talked  about  it  with 
you? — No. 

Do  you  know  Hook  at  all? — Yes. 

Did  he  come  and  visit  Miss  Barrow  often  while  she  was  living  with 
you? — Several  times. 

Hook,  I  suppose,  was  always  rather  needy — I  mean  he  was  short  of 
money? — No,  not  always. 

Do  you  know  whether  Miss  Barrow  was  in  the  habit  or  did  she  ever 
give  him  money? — I  dare  say  she  did. 

Did  you  know  that  Hook  took  the  furniture  from  Mrs.  Grant's  when 
Mrs.  Grant  died? — No,  I  cannot  say  I  knew  that. 

Did  you  know  that  he  sold  some  furniture  to  Miss  Barrow? — Yes. 

What  furniture  was  that — it  was  not  his,  was  it? — I  presume  so,  or  he 
would  not  sell  it. 
32 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

You  naturally  presume,  because  he  sold  it,  that  it  -was  his? — Yes. 

You  never  inquired  whether  it  belonged  to  his  sister? — No,  I  did  not 
ask  him. 

Would  you  mind  just  opening  that  cash  box  for  a  moment.  (The 
witness  did  so.)  I  understand  you  to  say,  "  I  saw  a  tray  in  the  cash  box. 
Under  the  tray  a  space.  There  was  a  roll  of  notes  in  the  lower  part  under 
the  tray.  The  bags  were  in  the  two  compartments  of  the  tray."  Would 
you  mind  letting  me  have  the  cash  box?  (Handed.)  This  is  rather  an 
important  matter.  You  say,  "  The  bags  were  in  the  two  compartments 
of  the  tray."  You  mean  these  two  compartments  (indicating)? — Yes. 

And,  of  course,  the  tray  lids  were  shut,  because  obviously  the  box 
will  not  shut  when  the  tray  lids  are  open.  You  see  that? — Yes. 

Therefore  the  bags,  whatever  they  contained,  were  sufficiently  small 
to  go  within  those  trays? — Not  necessarily. 

Obviously — because  you  cannot  shut  the  box  ? — You  need  not  have  the 
lids  shut  quite  close  down. 

But  if  anything  sticks  up  at  all  (counsel  manipulated  the  lids)? — Yes. 
but  not  quite  so  high  as  that. 

Yes,  but  not  with  a  roll  of  notes  underneath.  I  will  just  show  you. 
You  see  anything  above  the  level  of  that  (indicating)  would  prevent  the 
box  closing.  You  see  there  is  very  little  above  anyhow.  Do  you  say  the 
two  lids  were  sticking  up  or  not? — They  were  slightly  open. 

Slightly  up,  about  as  they  are  now? — Yes,  they  might  be  something 
like  that. 

Practically  shut,  but  slightly  up? — Yes. 

You  are  quite  sure  the  bags  were  in  them? — Yes,  and  there  were  some 
few  bags  underneath  as  well. 

You  did  not  see  those? — Oh,  yes,  I  did. 

You  did  not  mention  that  in  your  evidence? — No. 

I  am  reading  your  evidence — "  Under  the  tray  there  was  a  space. 
Under  the  tray  there  were  some  bank  notes,  but  the  bags  were  in  the 
two  compartments  of  the  tray."  You  did  not  say  anything  about  the  bags 
being  under  the  tray  before? — I  am  quite  aware  of  that. 

Why  do  you  say  it  now? — Because  it  was  so. 

Then  why  did  you  not  say  it  before? — Because  I  was  confused  at  the 
time. 

You  gave  your  evidence  at  the  Police  Court.  You  were  the  person 
who  communicated  with  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions,  were  you  not? 
—Yes. 

You  took  great  interest  in  this  case,  and  you  gave  your  evidence 
carefully.  "  That  is  the  cash  box  which  belonged  to  Miss  Barrow. 
There  was  a  tray  in  it.  Under  the  tray  a  space.  The  bags  were  in  the 
two  compartments  of  the  tray.  The  bank  notes  were  in  the  lower  part 
under  the  tray."  Would  not  any  man  reading  that  or  listening  to  that 
conclude  that  there  were  no  bags  under  the  tray? — Well,  I  say  that  there 
were,  but  not  many. 

Were  there  any,  as  a  matter  of  fact? — Yes. 

How  many? — As  far  as  I  could  gather — I  did  not  take  the  cash  box 
in  my  hand 

Did  you  ever  see  the  tray  out? — Yes,  I  did. 
c  33 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

For  how  long? — For  a  few  seconds. 

Was  there  a  purse  underneath  it  or  anything  of  that  kind? — There 
might  have  been  that  leather  purse  there,  but  I  could  not  swear  to  that. 

Is  it  possible  to  buy  a  commoner  box  than  that? — I  do  not  know. 

Look  at  it.  Look  at  the  lock.  (Box  handed)  ? — It  is  a  very  old  one, 
I  believe. 

I  suppose  it  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  a  cash  box  because  it  is  in  the 
shape  of  it,  but  it  is  a  tin  box,  is  it  not,  with  the  commonest  of  common 
locks  upon  it? — I  am  no  judge  of  cash  boxes  or  tin  boxes  of  any  description. 

Your  cousin  was  a  very  eccentric  woman,  was  she  not? — She  had  very 
peculiar  ways. 

She  spat  in  your  wife's  face  or  your  brother's? — She  spat  in  my  wife's 
face. 

She  was  a  peculiarly  excitable  person? — She  had  very  peculiar  ways. 

After  the  last  Budget,  was  she  very  much  alarmed  about  the  question 
of  taxation  and  compensation  fund  affecting  these  licensed  premises? — She 
was  very  much  worried  about  the  compensation  clause. 

Was  she  very  much  alarmed  about  what  she  called  Mr.  Lloyd  George's 
Budget — was  she  very  anxious  about  it?  Did  she  not  consult  you  upon  the 
question  of  the  liability  she  would  be  under  to  contribute  to  the  compensa- 
tion fund  under  the  Buck's  Head  property  to  begin  with? — Yes. 

And  did  she  not  tell  you  she  was  afraid  that  in  consequence  of  the 
taxation  on  land  she  would  suffer  a  great  deal  over  the  Buck's  Head? — No, 
she  never  put  it  like  that  to  me. 

Did  she  consult  you  about  it? — Yes. 

You  went  so  far  as  actually  to  draft  a  letter  for  her,  did  you  not? — 
Yes,  I  did. 

That  was  on  24th  March,  1910,  when  she  was  at  your  house? — Yes. 

Was  that  written  to  the  Inland  Revenue,  or  to  whom? — That  was 
written  to  the  brewery  solicitor. 

The  brewery  solicitor? — Yes. 

Suggesting  that  she  should  be  allowed  to  make  certain  deductions  in 
respect  of  the  Buck's  Head  property  ? — No,  I  did  not  put  that  in  the  letter. 

Well,  I  will  read  you  the  letter.  I  will  put  it  in.  It  is  dated  24th 
March,  1910.  (It  is  only  a  draft,  Mr.  Attorney) — "I  beg  to  acknowledge 
the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  14th  March,  1910.  My  relative  who  advises  me 
has  referred  to  sub-section  3  of  the  Licensing  Act,  1904,  of  which  you  speak, 
and  informs  me  that,  as  my  lease  is  of  the  same  term  within  a  few  days 
as  that  of  my  tenant,  I  am  entitled  to  deduct  as  follows: — 1908,  11  per 
cent.,  £5  10s."  &c.,  &c.  (reading  down  to  the  words),  "will  more  than 
licence  any  rent  due  for  more  than  twelve  months."*  Look  at  it,  No.  125. 
Is  that  your  handwriting? — It  looks  similar  to  mine,  but  I  do  not  recollect 
writing  it. 

If  it  is  not  yours,  can  you  suggest  anybody  whose  it  is? — No. 

Will  you  kindly  take  a  pencil  and  write  the  first  few  words  yourself, 
"  I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  " ;  that  will  be  quite  enough. 
(The  witness  did  so,  and  the  document  was  put  in  and  marked  No.  126.) 

Just  look  for  yourself  having  written  this ;  have  you  any  doubt  whatever 
that  that  is  your  handwriting? — Well,  I  cannot  recollect  writing  it. 


*  See  Appendix  Al. 
34 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

I  see.  You  are  quite  sure  she  did  consult  you  about  the  compensation 
fund?— Yes. 

And  there  was  a  letter  from  a  solicitor? — Yes. 

And  you  yourself  drafted  a  letter  for  her  to  write  to  the  solicitor  to 
the  brewery? — Yes. 

Did  you  and  she  have  a  little  bit  of  a  quarrel  while  she  was  staying 
with  you?-*-No. 

Nothing  of  the  sort? — Not  a  quarrel,  no. 

You  know  Miss  Barrow's  handwriting,   do  you  not? — Yes. 

I  do  not  want  you  to  do  anything  more  than  just  to  tell  me  if  that 
document  (exhibit  7)  is  in  her  handwriting.  Is  it  her  handwriting? — Yes, 
it  is  very  much  like  it. 

You  have  seen  that  document  before,  have  you  not? — No. 

This  (exhibit  7)  was  put  in  at  the  Police  Court.  It  is  a  document  in 
Miss  Barrow's  handwriting,  and  is  as  follows: — "To  Mr.  F.  H.  Seddon, 
63  Tollington  Park,  N.,  27th  March,  1911.  Dear  Mr.  Seddon,— My  only 
nearest  relatives  are  first  cousins,"  &c.  (reading  the  letter  down  to  the 
words)  "  Yours  sincerely,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow."*  (To  the  witness) — Was 
that  a  delusion  on  Miss  Barrow's  part  that  you  had  not  been  kind  to  her? — 
I  should  say  so. 

There  was  no  foundation  for  it  at  all? — No. 

You  had  never  expected  that  she  would  leave  you  any  of  her  property? 
— I  should  not  have  been  at  all  surprised. 

I  think  you  said  before  the  magistrate,  "  I  never  gave  it  a  thought, 
as  such  a  peculiar  woman  might  leave  it  to  a  perfect  stranger  "  ? — Yes. 

Did  she  seem  much  worried  about  this  increase  in  the  licence  duties? 
— She  could  not  understand  how  it  was  increasing  each  year. 

Did  it  worry  her? — To  that  extent;  she  wanted  to  know  the  reason 
of  it. 

Did  she  not  also  consult  you  about  the  proposed  land  valuation  and 
subsequent  taxation,  quite  apart  from  compensation? — No. 

Did  she  not  mention  that  to  you  ? — No,  I  have  no  recollection  of  that. 

That  in  addition  to  the  burden  that  the  compensation  contribution 
put  upon  her,  she  was  in  peril  of  a  further  contribution  in  regard  to  this 
Buck's  Head  by  reason  of  a  proposed  tax  upon  land — did  she  say  anything 
to  you  about  it? — She  might  have  mentioned  it  at  the  time  it  was  going 
on. 

Did  she  tell  you  a  great  friend  of  hers,  a  Mrs.  Smith,  had  bought  an 
annuity? — No. 

Do  you  know  the  Mrs.  Smith  that  I  am  referring  to? — I  have  seen 
Mrs.  Smith. 

Do  you  know  that  Mrs.  Smith,  who  is  in  somewhat  similar  circum- 
stances, had  bought  an  annuity  about  that  time? — I  knew  she  was  in  receipt 
of  an  annuity. 

Mrs.  Smith  and  Miss  Barrow  were  great  friends? — They  were. 

Do  you  remember  the  day  of  the  removal? — Yes. 

What  time  do  you  say  it  took  place? — I  could  not  tell  you;  I  was  not 
there. 

Where  did  Miss  Barrow  keep  the  cash  box  when  she  was  in  your  house  ? 
— In  a  trunk. 


See  Appendix  F.  35 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

The  trunk  was  removed,  amongst  other  things,  from  your  house? — 
Yes,  I  suppose  so.  I  was  not  there. 

Can  you  suggest  any  reason  why  the  cash  box  should  be  taken  out  of 
the  trunk? — I  don't  know. 

You  saw  her  frequently  after  she  went  to  Tollington  Park? — Yes. 

And  I  suppose  you  occasionally  met  in  the  street  or  at  Tollington  Park 
or  other  places? — Yes. 

In  the  park  itself  did  you  ever  see  her  meet  other  people  there? — Not 
that  I  know  of. 

Sometimes  she  would  get  offended  and  not  speak  to  anybody  for  a 
week  at  a  time? — Yes. 

And  all  about  nothing? — Yes. 

Did  you  see  Hook  when  he  came  to  your  house  to  see  Miss  Barrow? — 
Yes,  I  have  seen  him  two  or  three  times. 

You  had  plenty  of  conversation  with  him? — I  had  a  conversation  with 
him,  yes. 

That  would  be,  as  we  know,  between  August,  1910,  and  the  time  of 
her  death — some  time  in  the  late  end  of  1910  or  early  in  1911? — When  I 
saw  Hook? 

When  he  came  to  your  house? — That  was  before  Miss  Barrow  left  me. 

Did  you  not  see  Hook  again  after  he  left  Tollington  Park? — No. 

Had  you  a  communication  from  Hook  by  letter? — None. 

Hook  knew  your  address,  of  course? — Oh,  yes,  he  knew  31  Evershot 
Road. 

You  did  move  from  there  in  the  June  quarter,  1911? — Yes. 

And  you  have  never  got  any  letter  such  as  has  been  put  to  you — such  a 
letter  has  never  been  received? — No. 

The  Attorney-General  asked  you  this.  You  got  some  information  prior 
to  20th  September.  How  soon  before  20th  September  was  it  that  you 
got  that  information  about  the  boy  not  attending  school? — Three  or  four 
days. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  it  was  a  little  more  than  three  or  four  days.  I 
put  it  to  you  that  it  was  more  than  a  week  before? — It  may  have  been. 

And  that  the  information  was  that  Miss  Barrow  was  ill? — Yes. 

You  say  it  may  have  been  more  than  a  week  before,  and  you  said  the 
information  was  that  Miss  Barrow  was  ill.  Do  you  appreciate  that.  I  do 
not  want  to  catch  you  in  the  slightest? — I  understand. 

Do  you  appreciate  what  an  important  answer  you  have  given  me, 
because  I  do  not  want  to  get  an  answer  from  you  from  which  the  value  is 
to  be  taken  away  hereafter  by  your  saying  you  did  not  understand.  You 
say  it  may  have  been  more  than  a  week  before,  and  you  believe  the  message 

was  that  Miss  Barrow  was  ill.     Do  you  still ? — No,  I  withdraw  that. 

Put  it  this  way.  The  first  information  I  had  from  the  school,  or  from  my 
boy  going  to  the  school,  was  that  the  boy  was  ill.  Then  afterwards  we 
heard  Miss  Barrow  was  ill. 

Now,  I  put  it  to  you  that  you  did  not  attach  any  importance  to  it. 
I  am  not  endeavouring  in  any  way  to  draw  any  inference  against  you  of  any 
kind  or  shape,  but  what  I  want  to  put  to  you  is  that  you  did  know  Miss 
Barrow  was  ill? — Only  through  hearsay. 

And  this  is  common  ground;  you  went  on  20th  September  and  called, 
36 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

and  you  saw  the  servant,  who  said  to  you,  "  Don't  you  know  she  is  dead 
and  buried  ?  "  and  were  told  that  if  you  came  at  about  9  o'clock  you  would 
eee  Mr.  Seddon.  Then  your  wife  went  with  you  that  night,  or  did  you  go 
alone  that  night? — Both  of  us. 

And  then  your  wife  and  your  sister-in-law  went  round  the  next  day? — 
I  think  so. 

When  your  wife  saw  Seddon  the  next  day  did  you  know  that  Seddon 
told  her  that  he  was  going  away  for  a  holiday? — Yes. 

And  that  he  would  see  you  when  he  came  back? — Yes;  he  was  going 
away  for  a  fortnight. 

Do  you  remember  the  little  boy,  Ernie  Grant,  coming  round  to  you 
just  before  9th  October  to  say  that  Mr.  Seddon  was  back  and  could  see 
you — do  you  remember  the  message  coming  to  you? — Yes. 

Then  you  had  the  interview.  You  said,  "  I  have  called  round  to  know 
about  Miss  B.'s  will  and  the  policy"? — Yes. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  what  you  said  was,  "  I  have  called  round  to  know 
about  Miss  B.'s  will  and  the  annuity"? — No,  I  said  "the  policy." 

Are  you  quite  sure  that  Miss  Barrow  had  not  told  you  herself  at  one 
of  these  meetings  you  had  had  with  her  that  she  had  bought  an  annuity? 
Will  you  take  your  oath  to  that? — Yes,  I  will;  I  am  quite  sure. 

Will  you  pledge  your  oath  you  never  knew  until  you  were  told  by  Mr. 
Seddon  that  Miss  Barrow  had  bought  an  annuity? — Yes.  I  never  knew  it 
until  then. 

You  said  before  the  magistrate  that  Mr.  Seddon  said  to  you,  "  I  am 
quite  willing  to  meet  any  solicitor,  and  I  can  assure  you  everything  has  been 
perfectly  legal  and  done  solely  through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers."  That 
is  the  evidence  you  gave  at  the  Police  Court? — Yes. 

Now,  you  have  added  something  to  that  to-day  which  apparently  you 
did  not  say  before  the  magistrate,  which  is  of  importance.  You  say  he 
added  something  to  that? — He  said,  "  You  have  been  consulting  a  solicitor." 

That  is  not  what  I  am  complaining  about.  This  morning  you  said  in 
addition  to  saying,  "  I  can  assure  you  everything  has  been  perfectly  legal 
and  done  solely  through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers,"  he  said,  "  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it"? — Yes. 

Why  did  you  not  tell  that  to  the  magistrate?  It  is  somewhat  an 
important  statement? — As  I  told  you  before,  I  have  never  been  in  a  Court 
of  law  in  my  life,  and  I  was  very  ill  at  the  time,  and  I  got  confused. 

You  agree  it  is  a  very  important  part  of  that  conversation,  is  it  not, 
if  it  is  a  fact  that  he  said  it? — It  is  a  fact;  you  say  it  is  important. 

Did  you  and  he  part  on  good  terms? — Yes. 

Did  you  have  an  interview  with  the  Public  Prosecutor? — No. 

Did  you  mention  the  word  "  arsenic  "  by  any  chance  ? — Who  to  t 

The  Public  Prosecutor? — I  never  saw  him. 

Did  you  mention  the  word  "  arsenic  "  to  anybody  ? — I  never  knew 
anything  about  it  till  after  the  inquest. 

The  answer  is  "  No "  if  it  is  no.  Had  you  said  anything  about 
arsenic? — No. 

Nothing  at  all? — Nothing  whatever. 

Was  Miss  Barrow  at  all  careful  about  her  personal  appearance! — Well, 
no;  she  did  not  dress  very  smartly. 

37 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

How  late  did  you  see  her — do  you  remember  the  last  time  you  saw  her 
yourself? — August  Bank  Holiday  week. 

That  would  be  right  towards  the  beginning  of  August? — Yes. 

She  was  quite  well  then  ? — Yes,  except  that  she  complained  of  the  heat. 

She  had  consulted  a  good  many  doctors  in  her  time,  had  she  not? — 
I  don't  think  so — not  a  great  many. 

How  many? — There  was  Dr.  Martin. 

That  is  one.     Then  Dr.  Ball? — I  do  not  know  about  him. 

Whom  else  besides  Dr.  Martin? — Dr.  Francis. 

That  is  two?— That  is  all  I  know  of. 

Did  you  know  a  Mr.  Jarman,  a  cheesemonger,  at  Crouch  Hill? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  whether  he  was  in  the  habit  of  changing  dividend 
warrants  for  Miss  Barrow? — Yes. 

And  did  Mrs.  Vonderahe  sometimes  go  with  her  there? — Always  went 
with  her. 

Did  your  wife  sometimes  get  bank  notes  changed  for  her? — Never 
changed  a  bank  note  in  my  life  for  her. 

Nor  did  she  that  you  know  of? — No. 

Do  you  remember  one  occasion  on  which  Margaret  Seddon  came  round 
with  a  message  to  your  house,  and  the  door  was  shut  in  her  face? — No. 

What  was  that? — She  brought  a  message,  but  the  door  was  not  shut 
in  her  face. 

Tell  us  what  you  know  about  it? — My  wife  told  me  in  the  evening 
that  a  girl  had  been  round  there  and  asked  if  there  were  any  letters  for 
Miss  Barrow,  and  my  wife  said  "  No  " ;  that  was  all. 

Was  she  treated  rather  discourteously? — No. 

Did  you  rather  resent  Miss  Barrow  having  left  you? — No. 

Was  there  a  funeral  at  your  house  at  one  time  in  March,  191  It — No, 
no  funeral  at  my  house. 

Was  there  a  funeral  to  which  Miss  Barrow  went  at  any  time? — No. 

Do  you  know  whether  Miss  Barrow  lost  a  friend  early  in  that  year  1911  f 
— No.  There  was  a  death  at  my  house  and  an  inquest,  and  the  burial 
took  place  at  Devonshire  Road. 

Miss  Barrow  knew  of  it,  did  she  not? — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  mentioned  Dr.  Martin 
and  Dr.  Francis  who  had  attended  her.  When  was  it  that  Dr.  Francis 
attended  her? — When  she  was  living  at  Lady  Somerset  Road,  Kentish 
Town. 

As  we  know,  she  came  to  live  with  you  some  time  early  in  1909,  and 
stopped  fifteen  months.  It  was  some  time  before  that? — Yes. 

You  told  me  that  you  had  had  some  information,  in  consequence  of 
which  you  went  to  the  house  and  inquired.  Now  I  want  you  to  tell  us  what 
the  information  was,  and,  as  near  as  you  can  say,  when  it  was  that  you  got 
it.  What  was  it  led  you  to  go  to  the  house  to  make  the  inquiry? — It 
was  my  little  boy  going  to  the  same  school  as  Ernie  Grant.  Ernie  Grant 
was  away  from  school.  The  Board  school  sent  round  a  boy  to  inquire  the 
reason  why,  and  the  boy  brought  back  a  message,  and  he  said  Ernie  Grant 
was  not  well,  as  far  as  I  can  understand  now  or  remember.  Two  or  three 
days  after  that  the  school  sent  round  again  to  inquire  about  his  absence, 
and  they  then  said  that  his  aunt  was  ill.  On  two  nights  previous  to  calling 
38 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe 

on  the  Seddons  my  wife  and  I  were  passing  Seddon's  house,  and  we  saw 
all  the  windows  of  her  apartments  wide  open. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Was  that  unusual? — It  was  unusual. 

You  passed  the  place  before? — Yes. 

And  it  was  unusual  to  see  all  the  windows  open? — Yes. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Now  I  want  to  know  was  it  after  that  that 
you  went  to  make  an  inquiry? — Yes. 

You  cannot  fix  it  nearer  than  a  night  or  two  nights  before  you  actually 
went? — About  two  nights  previous. 

Mrs.  JULIA  HANNAH  VONDERAHE,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS 
— I  am  the  wife  of  the  last  witness,  Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe.  After  Miss 
Barrow  left  our  house  I  used  to  meet  her  sometimes.  I  saw  her  in  the 
street  at  various  places — Tollington  Park  or  Stroud  Green  Road.  I  was 
on  friendly  terms  with  her.  The  last  time  I  saw  her  alive  was  in  the  street 
towards  the  end  of  August.  I  first  heard  of  her  death  from  my  husband, 
and  I  went  with  him  that  same  night  to  63  Tollington  Park.  I  did  not  see 
either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Seddon  at  that  time.  I  went  again  next  morning  along 
with  my  sister-in-law,  Mrs.  Albert  Edward  Vonderahe.  On  that  occasion 
Miss  Seddon,  the  daughter,  opened  the  door.  We  were  shown  into  a  sitting 
room,  where  we  waited  some  time,  and  then  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  came  in. 
Mr.  Seddon  asked  who  we  were. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Gentlemen,  let  me  warn  you  for  a  moment. 
As  the  Attorney-General  said  just  now,  it  is  well  that  you  should  under- 
stand how  the  evidence  applies.  Anything  that  Mrs.  Seddon  said  would 
not  be  evidence  against  her  husband.  You  must  try  and  remember  that 
as  we  go  on,  so  that  you  will  be  able  to  divide  the  evidence  up  properly. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Your  lordship  means,  of  course,  unless  she 
said  it  in  his  presence. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Of  course,  I  am  speaking  of  this  particular 
occasion ;  but  not  always  in  his  presence  if  not  in  his  hearing,  I  am  speak- 
ing as  we  go  along.  Gentlemen,  not  even  in  his  presence  if  he  did  not 
hear  it. 

Examination  continued — Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  came  into  the  room 
together.  Mr.  Seddon  spoke  first;  he  asked  who  we  were.  He  turned  to 
my  sister-in-law  and  asked  whether  she  was  Mrs.  Frank  Vonderahe,  and  I 
said,  "  No,  I  am."  He  then  handed  me  the  letter,  exhibit  1  (letter  dated 
14th  September,  1911,  from  F.  H.  Seddon  to  Frank  E.  Vonderahe).  I 
read  that  letter.  He  asked  me  why  we  did  not  come,  and  I  said  we  had 
had  no  letter,  or  we  should  have  come,  and  I  added  that  I  must  go  to 
the  post  office  and  see  why  I  did  not  receive  the  letter.  I  never  received 
any  letter  like  that  on  14th  September.  Shown  letter  and  envelope  marked 
No.  127 — That  is  a  business  letter  which  I  had  redirected  to  me  on 
Saturday,  16th  September  from  31  Evershot  Road  to  my  then  house, 
160  Corbyn  Street. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — We  would  like  to  see  how  it  is  re-addressed. 
(The  letter  and  the  envelope  were  handed  to  the  learned  judge.)  This 
has  been  addressed  to  "  Mrs.  Vonderahe,  31  Evershot  Road,  Tollington 
Park,"  and  across  it  is  written  in  ink,  "  Not  known,"  and  at  the  top  of 
it  is  written  "160  Corbyn  Street."  The  postal  date  I  cannot  see. 

39 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mrs.  Julia  Hannah  Vonderabe 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — It  has  gone,  but  the  words  "  Not  known  "  are 
written  on  the  envelope. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKKILL — I  just  wanted  to  see  whether  it  was  unduly 
delayed  or  anything  of  that  sort.  The  post  mark  is  off. 

Examination  continued — Besides  the  black-edged  letter,  exhibit  1,  Mr. 
Seddon  gave  me  the  letter  addressed  "  To  the  Relatives,"  exhibit  3,  in 
an  envelope.  He  also  showed  me  a  copy  of  a  will,  exhibit  4 ;  he  gave 
it  to  me  to  read.  Besides  that  he  gave  me  a  memorial  card,  exhibit  5 — 
"  In  loving  memory  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  who  departed  this  life 
14th  September,  1911,  aged  forty-nine  years.  Interred  in  Islington  Ceme- 
tery, East  Finchley,  Grave  Xo.  19453,"  and  then  there  are  some  verses. 
He  put  all  these  documents  in  an  envelope  which  he  gave  me. 

Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  Miss  Barrow? — I  did 
not  have  much.  You  see  whilst  I  was  reading  these  papers  he  was  talking 
to  my  sister-in-law. 

Before  you  went  away,  did  you  have  any  more  conversation? — Mr. 
Seddon  spoke  about  a  letter  that — well,  he  sent  Miss  Seddon  about  a  letter 
of  Miss  Barrow's,  and  said  that  I  slammed  the  door  in  her  face,  and  I 
contradicted  Miss  Seddon,  and  said  I  did  not  do  so.  That  was  when  we 
were  parting  with  Mr.  Seddon. 

Did  you  make  an  appointment  before  you  left,  or  was  anything  said 
about  your  husband  seeing  Mr.  Seddon? — Yes.  I  asked  him  if  he  would 
see  my  husband  and  my  sister-in-law's  husband  in  the  evening,  and  he 
said  "  No,"  he  could  not,  as  he  was  going  away  next  day,  and  he  had 
wasted  enough  time,  and  he  could  not  possibly  see  them.  I  said  they 
would  not  detain  him  long,  and  he  said  he  could  not  see  them  as  he  was 
going  away  for  a  fortnight. 

Did  he  mention  anything  about  the  night  Miss  Barrow  died  ? — He  said 
what  a  trying  time  they  had  had  with  her — how  she  had  called  them  up, 
and  he  went  up  and  said  she  must  not  call  them  any  more,  as  they  wanted 
their  rest,  and  she  must  be  quiet. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Were  you  at  home  when 
Miss  Barrow  left  your  house  to  go  to  Tollington  Park? — Yes. 

Do  you  remember  Creek  and  Hook  helping  to  move  the  things? — I 
could  not  say  what  name. 

A  man  came  with  a  cart  and  horse? — Yes,  there  was  a  cart  and  horse. 

Was  anything  left  behind — did  anybody  come  back  for  anything,  do 
you  remember? — No. 

Will  you  tell  me  what  time  it  was  in  the  day  when  the  moving  took 
place? — As  far  as  I  can  remember,  it  was  started  about  mid-day. 

They  started  about  12  o'clock  and  finished  at  about  3? — Something 
like  that,  as  near  as  I  can  remember. 

Miss  Barrow  gave  a  week's  notice  before  she  left — she  had  put  it  on 
the  table,  I  think? — Yes. 

I  think  you  said  before  the  magistrate  that  you  had  not  exactly  had 
a  quarrel,  but  she  had  had  one  of  her  eccentric  moods — not  speaking  to 
anybody  ? — Yes. 

There  was  no  cause  for  her  leaving  at  all,  was  there? — No. 

You  saw  her  at  the  end  of  August,  1911,  did  you  not? — Yes. 
40 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mrs.  Julia  Hannah  Vonderahe 

During  that  fourteen  months  or  so  she  was  at  the  Seddons'  house  you 
had  seen  her  pretty  frequently  out  of  doors? — Yes. 

Had  she  had  a  bad  cold  when  you  saw  her  at  the  end  of  August? — Yes. 

Otherwise  she  seemed  all  right? — Oh,  yes,  in  good  health  otherwise. 

The  last  week  in  August — just  before  September — you  saw  her  again? 
—Yes,  right  at  the  end  of  August. 

Do  you  remember  Margaret  Seddon  coming  round  to  ask  if  there  were 
any  letters  for  Miss  Barrow  at  your  house? — Yes. 

Was  the  door  just  opened  a  little  bit — what  happened? — I  opened 
the  door  myself,  and  I  answered  Miss  Seddon,  and  said  there  were  no 
letters,  and  shut  the  door. 

A  little  quickly? — Not  quicker  than  usual  that  I  can  remember. 

Anyhow,  if  she  thought  it  was  done  a  little  quickly,  might  there  have 
been  some  justification  for  her  thinking  it? — Well,  I  cannot  remember 
shutting  it  any  quicker,  unless  there  was  any  wind  might  have  blown  it,  or 
anything  like  that,  but  I  did  not  shut  it  quicker  than  at  any  other  time. 

I  think  you  went  several  times  with  Miss  Barrow  when  she  went  to 
change  dividend  warrants  at  Jarman's  at  Crouch  Hill? — Yes,  several  times. 

You  never  took  any  serious  notice  of  her  movements.  Once  she  spat 
in  your  face,  or  something  of  that  kind,  but  you  did  not  take  any  notice 
of  it?— No. 

She  was  very  excitable  and  irritable? — Yes. 

(Exhibit  No.  127  handed.)  Where  did  you  find  this  letter? — I  was 
looking  in  my  drawer,  and  came  across  it,  and,  seeing  14th  September, 
I  noticed  it.  I  cannot  say  exactly  the  date. 

Are  you  quite  sure  that  letter  came  in  that  envelope? — Yes. 

There  is  nothing  on  the  envelope  to  show  that  you  received  it  on  the 
Saturday;  it  is  only  your  recollection? — Yes.  The  stamp  is  cut  off;  I 
might  just  say  on  account  of  the  children ;  they  tear  the  stamps  off  the 
envelopes ;  they  were  collecting  them ;  that  was  the  reason  the  stamp  is 
gone. 

As  the  document  appears  now  there  is  no  date  appearing  on  the 
envelope  at  all? — No,  but  that  is  the  reason  why. 

That  is  the  letter  dated  Thursday,  14th  September,  and  you  received 
it  on  Saturday,  16th? — Yes. 

So  there  was  a  delay  of  two  days  according  to  you? — Yes. 

You  notice  that  the  envelope  is  marked  "  Not  known  "1 — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — As  I  understand  it,  you  found 
this  letter  since  you  were  examined  at  the  Police  Court? — I  found  it  since. 

You  remembered  at  the  Police  Court  that  a  business  letter  was  addressed 
to  Evershot  Road,  but  you  did  not  remember  any  more  details  than  that? — 
Yes,  it  was  that  letter  that  I  referred  to. 

You  have  looked  for  it,  and  you  found  it,  and  that  is  the  letter  now. 
Is  that  right? — Yes. 

Mrs.  AMELIA  BLANCHE  VONDERAHE,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS 
HUMPHREYS — I  am  the  wife  of  Albert  Edward  Vonderahe,  and  I  live  with 
him  at  82 A  Geldeston  Road,  Clapton.  On  21st  September  I  went  with  my 
sister-in-law  at  63  Tollington  Park,  and  I  saw  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  there. 
I  saw  Mr.  Seddon  give  my  sister-in-law  several  documents  in  an  envelope. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mrs.  Amelia  Blanche  Vonderahe 

Besides  those  documents  there  was  another  document  which  he  read  to  us. 
It  was  a  document  in  the  terms  of  exhibit  7,  which  is  a  letter  dated  27th 
March,  addressed  by  Miss  Barrow  to  F.  H.  Seddon,  speaking  of  her 
relatives.  I  noticed  a  copy  of  the  will,  which  Mr.  Seddon  produced,  and 
I  said  to  him  that  I  noticed  that  the  will  was  signed  with  lead  pencil. 
Mr.  Seddon  said  that  that  was  only  a  copy,  that  he  would  not  give  us  the 
original,  and  I  said,  "  Well,  of  course,  the  original  will  would  be  taken 
to  Somerset  House  for  probate."  He  replied  that  he  had  been  to 
Somerset  House,  but  there  was  no  probate  required  on  a  will  of  that 
description.  He  said  he  had  the  original  will  in  his  bank  for  safety.  I 
asked  him  if  he  wished  us  to  understand  that  Miss  Barrow  had  parted 
with  all  her  investments,  and  that  she  had  bought  an  annuity  which  had 
died  with  her.  I  mentioned  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's  shop  to 
him.  He  said,  "Yes,  everything,"  and  I  remarked,  "Well,  whoever 
had  persuaded  Miss  Barrow  to  do  that  was  a  remarkably  clever  person," 
that  Miss  Barrow  was  a  very  hard  nut  to  crack  if  you  mentioned  money 
matters  to  her.  He  made  no  answer  to  that. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKXILL — Did  he  say  who  had  granted  the  annuity! — 
No,  I  do  not  remember  him  saying  that. 

Examination  continued — What  did  he  tell  you  had  happened  the  last 
night  that  Miss  Barrow  was  alive — what  did  he  tell  you  about  the  events 
of  that  night? — He  said  Miss  Barrow  was  a  very  great  trouble  to  them. 
She  sent  down  once  or  twice;  she  sent  Ernie  Grant  down,  but  Mr.  Seddon 
said  his  wife  wa-s  worn  out  with  waiting  so  much  on  Miss  Barrow  that  he 
went  up  himself  to  her. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — "  As  his  wife  was  worn  out,"  then  what? — 
With  waiting  so  much  upon  her  during  her  illness. 

"  That  he  had  to  go  to  her  himself  "? — Yes,  and  he  asked  her  what 
she  wanted,  and  he  gave  her  some  brandy,  and  said  tliey  would  be  retiring 
to  rest,  and  he  hoped  that  she  would  not  trouble  them  again. 

By  "  again  "  you  understand  that  he  hoped  that  she  would  not  trouble 
them  again  that  night? — Yes. 

Did  he  tell  you  at  what  time  of  the  day,  evening,  or  night  it  was  when 
he  went  up  instead  of  his  wife? — No.  He  did  not  mention  the  time,  but 
the  boy  came  down  again  after  that,  and  he.  Mr.  Seddon,  went  up  again 
and  gave  her  some  brandy.  He  did  not  say  what  time  that  was.  He 
said  that  he  had  left  some  brandy  in  the  bottle,  which  was  gone  in  the 
morning.  I  do  not  remember  him  saying  the  hour  that  she  died. 

Examination  continued — I  think  that  is  all  that  he  told  me  about  that 
night  as  far  as  I  can  remember.  He  mentioned  Hilda  Grant's  insurance, 
and  he  also  spoke  about  the  funeral.  I  said  that  I  thought  it  was  a  great 
pity  that  she  was  buried  in  a  common  grave  when  she  had  a  family  vault 
at  Highgate,  but  Mrs.  Seddon  said  that  they  had  a  very  nice  funeral; 
they  did  everything  very  nicely. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCEJSTILL — Either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Seddon,  I  do  not  remember 
which,  said  that  Ernest  Grant  was  at  Southend  then.  Mr.  Seddon  said 
that  he  had  no  legal  claim  on  the  boy,  but  he  should  always  look  after 
him,  and  if  he  could  find  a  suitable  home  for  him  to  go  to  he  should  let 
him  go. 

Examination  continued — That  was  all  the  conversation,  as  far  as  I  can 
42 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mrs.  Amelia  Blanche  Vonderahe 

remember  now.     My  sister-in-law  and  I  then  went  away.     We  did  not  see 
either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  Seddon  after  that  time  at  all. 

Apart  from  the  one  matter  as  to  the  funeral  being  a  nice  one,  did  Mrs. 
Seddon  take  any  part  in  the  conversation? — Only  to  say  that  she  had  felt 
very  ill  through  waiting  on  Miss  Barrow,  and  that  she  was  going  to  tha 
doctor  that  day.  Miss  Barrow  showed  me  her  jewellery  in  the  early  summer 
of  1910  when  she  was  living  in  my  brother-in-law's  house  at  31  Evershot 
Road.  (Shown  exhibit  122.)  It  was  a  gold  watch  I  saw,  but  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  was  this  one;  I  saw  a  gold  watch  attached  to  this  chain.  (Shown 
exhibit  121,  gold  ring  with  a  diamond  set  in  a  claw.)  I  saw  a  ring  like 
that  in  Miss  Barrow's  possession ;  the  setting  is  exactly  the  same,  because 
I  remember  remarking  to  her  that  it  looked  rather  like  a  gentleman's 
ring,  and  she  said  it  was  her  mother's.  I  could  not  say  about  the  size, 
but  the  setting  is  precisely  the  same.  (Shown  exhibit  123,  a  gold  chain 
with  a  blue  enamelled  pendant  attached  to  it.)  I  saw  that  when  Miss 
Barrow  showed  me  her  jewellery. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  suggest  to  you  that  the 
first  thing  that  Mr.  Seddon  said  to  you  when  you  came  was,  "  Why  did 
you  not  answer  the  letter  that  I  sent  you"? — Yes;  he  said  that  to  my 
sister-in-law. 

It  was  said  to  both  of  you? — Yes. 

Did  you  tell  Mr.  Seddon  that  Miss  Barrow  was  not  responsible  at 
times? — Yes,  I  said  she  was  strange  at  times. 

Not  responsible? — Strange  at  times. 

What  you  said  before  the  magistrate  was  this,  "  I  said  to  Seddon  that 
at  times  Miss  Barrow  was  not  responsible"? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

Then  did  he  say  you  could  never  get  her  to  do  anything  she  did  not 
want  to  do? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

You  agree  with  that — it  was  pretty  difficult  to  get  her  to  do  anything 
that  she  did  not  want  to  do? — Well,  I  adhere  to  what  I  say — that  she 
was  peculiar. 

You  agree,  do  you  not,  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  get  her  to  do 
anything  that  she  did  not  want  to  do? — Yes,  it  was. 

And  anything  about  money? — Anything  about  money? 

I  think  you  said  that  she  was  a  hard  nut  to  crack  when  you  touched 
her  money? — Yes. 

That  seems  to  have  been  the  common  opinion  of  the  Vonderahes  and  of 
Mr.  Hook?— Yes. 

They  all  seemed  to  think  that? — Yes. 

'  She  was  a  difficult  person  to  handle  when  it  came  to  a  question  of 
money? — Yes. 

There  is  one  question  which  ought  to  have  been  put  in  chief.  Was 
Miss  Barrow  deaf? — Very  deaf. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — That  is  common  ground,  but  we  have  not 
asked  a  witness  here  yet. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Did  you  know  that  the  boy  Ernie  was  very 
useful  to  her,  because  he  used  to  shout  into  her  ear  the  messages  which 
she  could  not  hear  otherwise? — No,  but  he  had  to  shout  to  her. 

By  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  suppose  everybody  had  to  shout? — 
Everybody  had  to;  she  was  very  deaf. 

43 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Henry  Edward  Grove 

HENRY  EDWARD  GROVE,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a 
member  of  the  Royal  College  of  Surgeons.  I  am  a  Divisional  Surgeon  of 
the  Hornsey  Police  and  on  the  staff  of  the  Hornsey  Cottage  Hospital.  Dr. 
Cohen  (the  coroner  who  took  the  depositions  at  the  inquest)  has  been  under 
my  care  until  to-day,  when  he  has  gone  to  a  convalescent  home.  I  saw 
him  yesterday.  He  is  not  able,  either  physically  or  mentally,  to  attend 
the  Court  to-day  or  for  three  months. 

WILLIAM  DELL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  live  now  at 
31  Evershot  Road,  Tollirigton  Park.  I  went  there  on  1st  September  of 
last  year.  Three  days  after  going  there  I  received  a  circular  addressed 
to  a  Mr.  Vonderahe.  I  did  not  know  Mr.  Vonderahe's  address  at  that 
time.  I  re-posted  the  letter  after  writing  on  it,  "  Not  known,"  at  the 
pillar-box  at  the  corner  of  Fonthill  Road  and  Tollington  Park.  I  did  not 
myself  receive  any  other  letters  after  that  date  addressed  to  Mr.  Vonderahe. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hughes  came 
into  my  house  on  16th  September.  My  household  consists  of  myself,  my 
wife,  and  three  children,  and  no  servants. 

Just  look  at  the  envelope  of  that.  (Handed.)  Are  the  words  "  Not 
known"  on  that  written  in  your  handwriting? — No,  that  is  not  my  hand- 
writing. I  should  say  that  it  is  my  eon's  handwriting,  but  I  could  not 
swear  to  that. 

Mrs.  ELEANOR  FRANCES  DELL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — 
I  live  with  my  husband  at  31  Evershot  Road.  No  letter  addressed  to  the 
name  of  Vonderahe  came  to  our  house  about  14th  September  which  I  saw. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  understand  "  Not  known  " 
is  written  on  the  only  letter  there  was? — Yes. 

STANLEY  GEORGE  DELL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  live 
•with  my  parents  at  31  Evershot  Road.  I  remember  receiving  a  letter  that 
came  by  post  addressed  to  Mr.  Vonderahe.  I  crossed  it  "  Not  known," 
and  put  it  back  in  the  letter-box.  (Shown  exhibit  127.)  The  words  "  Not 
known  "  on  that  envelope  are  in  my  handwriting.  After  writing  that  I 
re-posted  the  letter. 

The  Court  adjourned. 


Second   Day— Tuesday,  5th  March,  1912. 
The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

[Several  witnesses  were  called  to  prove  the  possession  by  Miss 
Barrow  of  certain  bank  notes,  and  the  dealings  with  them  by 
the  two  prisoners.] 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My  lord,  that  finishes  all  this  evidence  with 

regard  to  the  notes,   and  I   will  state  now  what  the  effect  is   from   the 

documents  which  have  been  produced.     It  is  established  that  there  were  in 

all  thirty-three  Bank  of  England  notes  of  £5  each,  which  are  the  proceeds 

44 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

The  Attorney-General 

of  cheques  of  Truman,  Hanbury  &  Co.  in  favour  of  Miss  Barrow  at  various 
dates  extending  from  1901  to  1910;  and  that  those  thirty-three  £5  notes 
have  been  traced  as  to  each  of  them  as  the  proceeds  of  one  or  other  of  the 
cheques  received  by  Miss  Barrow  from  Truman,  Hanbury  &  Co.  for  the  rent 
of  the  Buck's  Head.  Then,  my  lord,  of  those  thirty-three,  six  of  them 
are  proved  to  have  gone  to  the  male  prisoner's  credit  with  his  bank;  one 
on  the  14th  October,  1910,  the  other  five  on  the  13th  January  of  1911. 
As  to  the  remaining  twenty-seven  of  the  thirty-three,  nine  of  them  are 
notes  with  endorsements  in  the  name  of  Scott,  of  Evershot  Road.  Those 
nine  appear  in  this  way.  The  two  of  them  are  endorsed  in  the  handwriting 
of  the  female  prisoner  on  the  14th  October  of  1910,  endorsed  by  her  with 
the  name  of  M.  Scott,  of  18  Evershot  Road;  six  are  endorsed  in  the  name 
of  Mrs.  Scott,  of  18  Evershot  Road;  one  in  the  name  of  Mrs.  Scott,  of  12 
Evershot  Road;  the  remaining  eighteen  of  the  thirty- three  are  traced  to 
Mrs.  Seddon.  The  whole  period  covered  during  the  dealing  with  these 
thirty-three  £5  notes  is  from  the  14th  October,  1910,  when  both  the 
male  and  the  female  prisoners  are  dealing  with  the  notes,  until  the  23rd 
August,  1911 ;  that  is  the  last  date  traced.  Therefore  my  learned  friend 
quite  rightly  pointed  out  that  all  these  thirty-three  notes  are  dealt  with 
before  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow.  That,  my  lord,  is  the  substance  of  what 
has  been  proved.  Each  note  has  been  traced  out,  as  your  lordship  has  seen, 
elaborately,  but  that  is  really  what  all  this  evidence  has  been  called  to 
establish. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BTJCKNILL — You  understand  that,  gentlemen? 

The  FOREMAN — Perfectly,  my  lord. 

CECIL  VANE  DUNSTAN,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  senior 
clerk  in  the  chief  accountant's  office  at  the  Bank  of  England.  I  produce 
the  transfer  book  for  India  3£  per  cent,  stock,  exhibit  8.  There  is  an 
entry  in  that  book  under  date  14th  October,  1910,  of  the  transfer  of  £1600 
3£  per  cent.  India  stock  from  the  name  of  Miss  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  of 
63  Tollington  Park,  to  the  name  of  Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  of  63  Tolling- 
ton  Park.  In  the  ordinary  course  that  entry  would  be  necessary  in  order 
to  transfer  the  stock  out  of  her  name  into  his  name.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  book  to  show  the  consideration.  The  entry  purports  to  be  signed,  as 
it  has  to  be  signed,  by  the  transferor  of  the  stock.  She  would  have  to 
appear  at  the  Bank  of  England  and  be  identified  by  some  person  who 
accompanied  her.  She  would  sign  the  book,  and  that  transfers  the  stock 
out  of  her  name  into  the  name  of  the  transferee,  Frederick  Henry  Seddon. 
In  the  ordinary  course  of  events  a  ticket  would  be  in  the  first  instance 
put  forward  by  a  stockbroker.  The  ticket,  exhibit  9,  was  put  forward  by 
W.  W.  Hale  &  Co.,  stockbrokers,  and  that  showed  that  there  was  to  be  the 
transfer  made  in  our  books.  These  are  instructions  to  prepare  the  transfer, 
and  we  then  make  the  entry;  the  transferor  comes,  and  being  identified, 
signs  the  book.  Miss  Barrow  did  that. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — As  far  as  I  know,  the  letter 
of  6th  October,  1910,  from  Miss  Barrow  is  the  first  document  in  that 
transaction.  It  is  addressed,  "  To  the  Secretary,  Chief  Accountant,  Bank 
of  England,"  and  is  as  follows: — "Dear  Sir,  as  I  am  disposing  of  the 
whole  of  the  above  stock,  please  transfer  same  to  Frederick  Henry  Seddon, 

45 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Cecil  Vane  Dunstan 

of  63  Tollington  Park,  London,  N.,  and  kindly  inform  me  when  it  will 
be  convenient,  and  I  will  call  and  sign  transfer  book.  Early  attention 
will  oblige. — Yours  faithfully,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  stockholder."  Our 
answer  to  that  is,  "  6th  October,  1910. — Miss  E.  M.  Barrow,  63  Tollington 
Park,  N. — Madam,  I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
5th  inst.,  and  in  reply  to  say  that  in  order  to  effect  your  purpose  it  will 
be  necessary  for  you  to  attend  here,  accompanied  by  a  stockbroker,  for 
the  purpose  of  identification,  and  execute  a  transfer  in  the  bank  books 
here,  or  to  grant  a  power  of  attorney  to  some  person  to  act  on  your 
behalf  in  like  manner.  See  enclosed  memorandum."  That  letter  is 
signed  by  H.  B.  Orchard.  Miss  Barrow  replied  on  7th  October,  and  that 
concluded  the  correspondence.  Thereupon  the  lady  having  been  given 
due  notice  that  a  stockbroker  would  have  to  be  present,  attended  with 
somebody  for  the  purpose  of  identification,  and  executed  the  transfer,  and 
the  stock  was  in  due  course  transferred  into  the  name  of  Seddon.  (The 
letters  were  put  in  and  marked  No.  130.) 

WILLIAM  WEBB,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVBRS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  a 
member  of  the  Stock  Exchange,  and  my  office  is  at  18  Austin  Friars.  I 
received  some  instructions  just  before  14th  October,  1910,  and  in  conse- 
quence my  clerk  prepared  the  stockbroker's  ticket,  exhibit  9,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  transfer  of  £1600  3£  per  cent.  India  stock  from  Eliza  Mary 
Barrow  to  Frederick  Henry  Seddon.  I  personally  attended  on  14th 
October  at  the  Bank  of  England  with  the  transferor,  Miss  Eliza  Mary 
Barrow.  I  witnessed  her  signature. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  had  some  correspondence 
with  Miss  Barrow — two  or  three  letters — and  everything  was  done  perfectly 
regularly.  I  had  no  instructions  otherwise  than  to  prepare  a  transfer  and 
attend  for  the  purpose  of  identification,  and  I  duly  carried  out  my  in- 
structions. 

Re-examined — Certain  formalities  have  to  be  gone  through  before  you 
can  transfer  stock.  All  those  formalities  were  duly  carried  out  in  this 
case.  What  had  happened  or  why  it  was  transferred  I  do  not  know. 

ARTHUR  ASTLE,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a  member 
of  the  Stock  Exchange  and  manager  of  the  firm  of  Capel-Cure  &  Terry, 
who  carry  on  business  at  Tokenhouse  Buildings  and  on  the  Stock  Ex- 
change. The  male  prisoner  was  introduced  to  me  on  25th  January,  1911. 
He  gave  me  instructions  to  sell  £1600  India  3£  per  cent,  stock,  which  I 
did,  realising  £1519  16s.  We  paid  him  a  cheque  for  that  amount.  I 
identify  exhibit  10  as  that  cheque.  It  is  a  crossed  cheque  on  the  London 
County  and  Westminster  Bank,  dated  25th  January,  1911,  "Pay  F.  H. 
Seddon,  Esq.,  or  order" — "bearer"  is  scratched  out — "£1519  16s." 
It  is  signed  by  "  Capel-Cure  &  Terry,  Arthur  Astle,"  and  it  is  endorsed 
"  F.  H.  Seddon." 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Mr.  Seddon  was  introduced 
to  us.  I  believe  that  my  firm  occupies  a  very  high  position  on  the  Stock 
Exchange.  The  word  "order"  on  the  cheque  was  unnecessary,  as  the 
striking  out  of  "bearer"  would  have  had  the  same  effect.  It  is  an 
endorsed  cheque  to  F.  H.  Seddon,  and  it  has  been  through  a  bank. 
46 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Arthur  Douglas  Laing 

ARTHUR  DOUGLAS  LAING,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVBRS  HUMPHREYS — 
I  am  a  clerk  with  the  London  County  and  Westminster  Bank,  Limited, 
Lothbury.  Messrs.  Capel-Cure  &  Terry  have  an  account  at  that  bank. 
(Shown  exhibit  10.)  That  is  a  cheque  for  £1519  16s.  drawn  upon  our 
bank.  That  was  paid  in  to  our  bank  on  the  same  day,  25th  January, 
by  the  opening  of  a  deposit  account  in  the  name  of  Frederick  Henry 
Seddon.  The  first  withdrawal  from  that  account  was  on  1st  February, 
when  £119  16s.  was  withdrawn  in  cash.  On  6th  March,  1911,  the  re- 
mainder of  the  money  was  drawn  out,  and  the  account  closed,  the  amount 
drawn  out  being  £1403  10s.  2d.,  which  included  the  interest  that  had 
accrued.  That  money  was  drawn  out  in  cash,  and  the  account  was  then 
closed. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  cannot  say  that  I  know 
that  on  the  completion  of  a  purchase  of  property  it  is  usual  to  pay  in 
notes  instead  of  cheques.  The  payment  out  was  in  the  shape  of  one 
£1000  note,  two  hundreds,  three  fifties,  three  tens,  and  three  fives,  the 
numbers  of  all  of  which  were  entered  in  our  waste  book. 

EDWIN  RUSSELL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  a 
solicitor  and  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Russell  <fe  Sons,  59  Coleman  Street. 
I  never  saw  the  male  defendant  until  I  saw  him  at  the  Police  Court. 
(Shown  exhibit  11.)  That  is  an  assignment  of  certain  property  which 
was  prepared  in  my  office  by  our  managing  clerk,  Mr.  Keble,  who  is  now 
dead.  In  the  transaction  mentioned  in  that  document  my  firm  acted  solely 
on  behalf  of  Mr.  Seddon.  It  is  an  assignment,  dated  llth  January,  1911, 
between  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  of  63  Tollington  Park,  spinster,  and  Frederick 
Henry  Seddon,  of  the  same  address,  insurance  agent,  and  it  recites  a  lease 
of  certain  property  of  27th  June,  1853,  for  seventy-six  and  a  quarter 
years,  expiring  in  1929.  It  shows  that  property  became  vested  in  Eliza 
Jane  Barrow,  and  it  further  recites  that  Eliza  Jane  Barrow  by  her  will 
bequeathed  all  that  estate  to  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  Then,  whereas  Eliza 
Jane  Barrow  died,  and  whereas  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  has  agreed  with 
Frederick  Henry  Seddon  to  assign  to  him  all  the  property  mentioned  in 
that  original  lease  for  the  residue  of  the  terms  in  consideration  of  the 
payment  by  or  on  the  part  of  the  said  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  to  the 
said  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  of  an  annuity  of  £52  secured  to  the  said  Eliza 
Mary  Barrow  during  her  life,  secured  on  the  rents  and  profits  of  the 
premises,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  assigns  to  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  the 
premises  comprised  in  the  lease  being  the  Buck's  Head  public-house  and 
No.  1  Buck  Street,  and  Seddon  covenants  to  pay  the  annuity  or  yearly 
sum  of  £52,  payable  by  equal  payments  of  £4  every  lunar  month,  and 
the  annuity  is  to  be  a  charge  on  the  premises,  and  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  is 
empowered  by  distress  to  recover  that  annuity  if  it  is  in  arrear  for  forty 
days.  It  is  signed  "  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,"  and  her  signature  is  witnessed 
by  Henry  W.  D.  Knight,  solicitor.  As  soon  as  we  were  satisfied  that  the 
title  to  the  property  was  in  order,  we  required  Miss  Barrow  to  be 
represented  by  a  separate  solicitor.  The  solicitor  introduced  for  that 
purpose  was  Mr.  Knight.  It  was  on  6th  January,  1911,  that  Mr.  Knight 
was  brought  into  the  matter  after  the  assignment  had  been  prepared. 
We  received  our  costs  from  the  male  prisoner,  and  we  also  received  from 

47 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Edwin  Russell 


him  by  a  separate  cheque  the  costs  which  would  have  to  be  paid  to  Mr. 
Knight. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — It  was  your  late  clerk,  Mr. 
Keble,  who  insisted  upon  a  separate  solicitor  appearing  for  Miss  Barrow, 
and  he  introduced  Mr.  Knight? — Our  firm  insisted. 

Mr.  Knight  was  introduced  by  your  firm,  he  was  not  nominated  by 
Mr.  Seddon?— I  think  not,  but  I  do  not  know.  Personally,  I  know  very 
little  of  the  transaction.  Our  account  was  agreed  at  a  certain  figure  for 
which  we  received  a  cheque;  the  amount  was  £29  8s.  Mr.  Knight's  costs 
were  fixed  at  the  sum  of  £3  3s.  That  was  agreed  to  at  an  interview 
between  the  parties,  and  it  was  paid  to  us  by  a  further  cheque  for  £4  13s., 
which  included  30s.  for  something  else.  We  paid  Mr.  Knight's  costs  out 
of  that  cheque.  Mr.  Keble,  our  managing  clerk,  called  on  6th  January 
upon  Miss  Barrow  at  Tollington  Park,  and  he  called  again  on  llth  January. 
The  entry  in  our  account  is  "  Attending,  completing  purchase  and  attesting 
execution." 

Do  you  know  that  there  were  some  defects  in  this  title,  and  they  had 
to  have  three  statutory  declarations? — Yes.  I  should  not  care  to  say 
that  Miss  Barrow  knew  of  these  defects.  I  do  not  think  that  they  were 
points  that  she  would  appreciate  at  all;  they  are  rather  technical. 

Without  knowing  any  of  the  technicalities,  did  she  know  the  broad 
fact  that  there  were  said  to  be  defects  in  the  title? — I  cannot  say,  but  she 
would  probably  know  that  the  declarations  were  to  be  made. 

And  these  are  the  three  statutory  declarations? — Yes.  Our  firm 
did  not  have  the  Buck's  Head  property  valued,  but  I  take  it  that  the 
value  could  easily  be  calculated  from  actuarial  tables. 

Do  you  know  that  the  present  value  of  the  property  is  £706  ? — I  have 
no  knowledge  of  that.  The  question  of  value  was  no  concern  of  ours. 
(Shown  letter  dated  30th  November  addressed  to  Mr.  Keble.)  That 
appears  to  be  in  the  same  handwriting  as  the  other  letters  from  Miss 
Barrow.  It  deals  with  the  information  which  is  desired  to  be  obtained 
from  Truman,  Hanbury  &  Buxton  enabling  us  to  transfer  the  property  to 
Seddon.  Referring  to  our  bill  of  costs  under  date  7th  September  I  see 
this  item,  "  Attending  Mr.  Brangham  informing  him  you  had  decided  to 
purchase,  and  that  valuation  was  only  required  as  a  precautionary  measure 
and  giving  him  particulars." 

Then,  "Writing  him,"  so  that  obviously  on  the  face  of  your  bill  of 
costs  there  was  some  correspondence  in  reference  to  a  valuation.  Do  you 
find  that  item  there? — Yes,  but  I  should  like  to  show  you  this  letter  of 
7th  December  from  the  male  prisoner,  which  has  some  bearing  upon  that. 
(Reads  letter.)  I  should  say  that  is  purely  upon  the  question  of  getting 
the  fees  arranged  before  Mr.  Brangham  valued.  (The  letters  were  returned 
to  the  witness.)  (Shown  letter  No.  133  addressed  to  Truman,  Hanbury  & 
Buxton  from  Miss  Barrow,  dated  30th  November.)  That  carries  out  what 
Miss  Barrow  says  she  is  going  to  do  in  the  letter  she  wrote  to  Mr.  Keble. 

HENRY  WILLIAM  DENNY  KNIGHT,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS 

— I  am  a  solicitor  practising  at  22  Surrey  Street,  Strand.     The  late  Mr. 

Keble  was  my  brother-in-law.     On  9th  January,  1911,  Mr.  Keble  mentioned 

to  me  the  matter  of  the  assignment  of  the  Buck's  Head,  and  on  the  same 

48 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Henry  William  Denny  Knight 

day  I  communicated  with  Miss  Barrow  by  letter.  After  receiving  a  reply 
from  her,  I,  on  her  behalf,  approved  the  draft  of  the  assignment  of  the 
Buck's  Head  and  No.  1  Buck  Street.  I  did  not  in  any  way  advise  Miss 
Barrow  in  the  matter.  I  was  only  to  carry  out  the  arrangement  that 
they  had  come  to.  I  attended  on  the  completion  of  the  matter  at  63 
Tollington  Park  on  llth  January.  Miss  Barrow  was  very  deaf.  I 
asked  her  to  read  the  material  part  of  the  assignment,  that  is,  the 
charging  of  the  annuity,  and  she  read  it  in  my  presence.  I  witnessed 
her  signature  to  that  document.  My  costs  were  paid  me  by  Messrs. 
Russell  &  Son  through  Mr.  Keble.  Miss  Barrow  said  she  was  glad  of  the 
assistance,  but  she  would  not  pay  anything. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — (Shown  exhibit  13,  being 
a  letter  from  witness  to  Miss  Barrow.)  What  is  stated  in  that  letter 
is  accurate.  I  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Keble,  my  brother-in-law,  not  by 
Mr.  Seddon.  Miss  Barrow  replied  by  the  letter,  exhibit  14.  I  remember 
that  the  draft  deed  of  conveyance  sent  to  me  contained  the  clause  charging 
the  property  with  the  payment  of  the  annuity. 

JOHN  CHABLES  PEPPER,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  am 
chief  clerk  in  the  Finsbury  and  City  of  London  Savings  Bank,  18J 
Sekforde  Street,  Clerkenwell.  Miss  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  had  a  deposit  at 
our  bank.  On  referring  to  our  ledger  I  find  that  that  account  was  opened 
on  17th  October,  1887,  and  it  was  never  closed  until  the  last  transaction 
on  19th  June,  1911,  when  the  whole  amount  standing  to  her  credit  at 
the  time  was  withdrawn  with  interest,  £216  9s.  7d.  I  find  that  the  last 
payment  in  to  her  account  was  on  5th  October,  1908,  and  the  last 
withdrawal  before  the  final  one  of  19th  June,  1911,  was  on  31st  July, 
1907.  It  appears  that  there  was  no  transaction  on  the  account  at  all 
after  that  date  until  the  full  amount  standing  to  her  credit  was  withdrawn 
on  19th  June,  1911.  I  remember  the  withdrawal  of  the  money  on  19th 
June,  1911.  Miss  Barrow  came  with  another  lady  whom  I  did  not  know. 
The  money  was  paid  over  to  her  all  in  coin ;  only  the  odd  money,  9s.  7d., 
was  in  silver  and  coppers,  the  rest,  £216,  was  in  gold.  The  notice  given 
the  week  previous  asked  for  half  notes  and  half  gold,  but  by  the  time 
Miss  Barrow  came  to  the  bank  she  had  apparently  changed  her  mind, 
and  she  asked  for  it  and  had  it  all  in  gold.  It  was  not  at  all  unusual  at 
that  time  to  pay  a  large  sum  like  that  in  gold.  "We  were  paying  cash 
more  than  usual  at  that  particular  time.  There  was  a  run  on  the  Birkbeck 
Bank.  The  gold  was  paid  out  in  two  bags  containing  £100  each,  and 
the  £16  loose. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  suppose  a  great  many 
people  had  a  fear  in  consequence  of  the  Birkbeck  trouble  about  that  time? 
— We  were  not  so  much  bothered  with  it.  We  had  no  run  on  our  bank 
at  all. 

Is  it  the  rule  of  your  bank  that  no  ordinary  savings  bank  account 
can  exceed  £200? — That  is  the  Government  rule. 

But  you  allow  it  to  exceed  it  as  long  as  it  is  only  the  interest  that 
takes  it  over  and  above  £200? — That  is  it — interest  on  £200  only — not 
in  excess. 

Therefore,  after  they  have  deposited  £200  they  do  not  get  any  interest 
D  49 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

John  Charles  Pepper 

on  the  excess,  there  is  no  compound  interest? — No  compound  interest; 
it  is  interest  on  the  £200  only.  If  anybody  wants  to  deposit  any  further 
money  with  us  they  have  to  open  an  investment  account.  Miss  Barrow 
opened  an  investment  account  with  our  bank  by  the  payment  of  £10 
on  30th  September,  1909.  There  was  no  further  payment  into  that 
account  except  the  money  which  accrued  due  for  interest.  On  7th  April, 
1911,  she  drew  it  out,  £10  7s.  9d.  The  amount  of  interest  on  that 
amount  was  2f  per  cent.  People  must  have  £50  to  their  credit  before 
they  can  open  a  special  investment  account,  and  that  account  is  limited 
to  £500. 

ARTHUR  DOUGLAS  LAING,  recalled,  further  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- 
GENERAL — (Shown  exhibit  2.)  I  saw  that  box  in  the  afternoon  of  Friday 
last,  1st  March.  I  saw  sovereigns  placed  in  that  box  by  the  chief  clerk 
of  our  bank.  They  were  placed  in  the  top  of  the  box,  above  the  tray, 
in  two  bags.  There  was  nothing  under  the  tray  at  the  time.  I  saw 
£500  in  two  bags  placed  on  the  top  of  the  tray  in  sovereigns. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  think  the  box  was  empty  when  we  tried 
those  experiments. 

Examination  continued — There  was  still  room  for  another  £500  I 
should  say.  In  each  of  the  two  outer  receptacles  in  the  tray  were  placed 
£150,  one  bag  in  each  receptacle.  With  £150  in  each  of  those  receptacles 
we  could  close  the  lid  of  the  receptacles  firmly  down.  I  think  a  little  more 
could  be  placed  in  each  receptacle. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — The  £150  was  just  shovelled 
into  the  bag  from  the  scale. 

Except  that  possibly  the  bottom  would  tumble  out  you  could  get 
about  £1500  to  £1600  in  that  box? — I  should  think  so ;  it  would  be  rather 
heavy.  That  box  is  hardly  the  sort  of  box  that  I  would  choose  myself ; 
I  should  not  trust  to  the  lock.  It  is  a  very  ordinary  box. 

ERNEST  GRANT,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  live  at  49 
Corrance  Road,  Brixton.  I  wras  ten  last  birthday.  I  remember  Miss 
Barrow ;  I  have  known  her  as  long  as  I  can  remember.  I  used  to  call 
her  "Chickie."  I  remember  going  to  live  with  her. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — As  far  as  the  depositions  in  this  case  are 
concerned,  my  friend  can,  of  course,  lead  this  witness. 

Examination  continued — I  also  remember  going  to  Mr.  Seddon's 
house  to  live  with  her  in  the  rooms  on  the  second  floor.  When  we  first 
went  there  I  slept  with  her  and  afterwards  I  slept  in  a  room  by  myself, 
that  room  being  the  little  room,  not  the  room  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook 
had  had,  but  the  little  room  by  the  side  of  that.  I  remember  going  away 
to  Southend  for  a  holiday  in  the  year  that  Miss  Barrow  died.  After  I 
came  back  Miss  Barrow  was  taken  ill,  and  she  had  to  stay  in  bed.  I 
remember  at  first  when  she  was  ill  that  I  slept  in  my  own  bed  in  the 
little  room  at  the  back.  When  she  got  worse  she  asked  me  to  sleep  in 
her  bed,  and  I  did  EO.  I  remember  the  last  night  that  I  slept  with  Miss 
Barrow.  On  that  night  she  kept  waking  up.  She  waked  me  up  and  I 
went  downstairs  to  call  Mrs.  Seddon,  because  Miss  Barrow  asked  me  to 
do  so.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  slept  on  the  ground  floor.  Mr.  Seddon  came 

5° 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Ernest  Grant 


upstairs  and  Mrs.  Seddon  also  came  up,  and  then  I  got  into  bed  again 
with  Miss  Barrow.  Mr.  Seddon  wanted  me  to  go  to  my  own  bed  to  get 
some  sleep,  and  I  went  to  my  own  bed  in  the  little  back  room.  After 
that  Miss  Barrow  called  out  again,  and  I  went  back  to  her  and  found  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Seddon  in  the  room  with  her.  I  had  left  them  in  the  room 
when  I  went  to  my  own  room  to  sleep,  and  Miss  Barrow  had  called  me 
back  again  directly  I  had  left.  I  got  into  her  bed,  and  Mr.  Seddon  again 
told  me  to  go  back  to  my  room,  which  I  did.  Miss  Barrow  called  me 
back  again,  and  I  went  back  to  her  room  and  found  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon 
there.  That  occurred  several  times  during  the  night,  Mr.  Seddon  telling 
me  to  go  back  to  my  room  and  then  Miss  Barrow  calling  me  back.  Later 
on  in  the  night  Mr.  Seddon  told  me  to  go  back  to  my  own  bed,  and  I 
went;  Miss  Barrow  did  not  call  me  back,  and  I  never  saw  her  again.  I 
stayed  in  my  own  bed  and  slept  there  during  the  whole  of  that  night. 
Miss  Barrow  was  an  affectionate  and  loving  woman  to  me.  I  remember 
the  next  morning,  the  morning  after  this  night  when  I  had  been  sent 
backwards  and  forwards.  I  was  sent  by  Mr.  Seddon  to  Southend  that 
day.  I  went  with  two  of  Mr.  Seddon's  children.  It  was  while  I  was 
staying  in  Southend,  at  Mrs.  Jeffrey's  house,  that  Mr.  Seddon  told  me 
that  Miss  Barrow  was  dead.  I  remember  the  servant,  Mary,  in  the 
house  at  Mr.  Seddon's  in  London.  I  know  now  that  her  name  is  Mary 
Chater.  She  never  waited  on  Miss  Barrow.  Miss  Barrow  and  I  had  our 
meals  together  in  her  room  upstairs  before  she  was  ill.  Maggie  Seddon 
used  to  cook  the  things  in  the  kitchen  next  door  to  Miss  Barrow's  room 
before  she  was  ill,  and  after  she  was  ill  Mrs.  Seddon  attended  her  through- 
out. I  saw  Miss  Barrow  taking  medicine.  Mrs.  Seddon  used  to  give  it 
to  her;  I  have  never  given  it  to  her  myself.  I  only  saw  her  taking 
medicine  once  herself;  I  do  not  know  exactly  when  it  was,  but  it  was 
while  she  was  ill  in  bed.  It  was  in  the  day  time  I  think.  The  medicine 
was  left  by  the  side  of  her  bed  for  her  so  that  she  could  reach  out  and  take 
it  herself. 

Used  she  to  ask  for  it,  or  was  it  given  to  her  by  Mrs.  Seddon  when 
she  came  in? — It  used  to  be  by  the  side  of  the  bed,  and  if  she  wanted  it 
she  used  to  get  it. 

Who  is  the  "  she  "  who  used  to  get  it? — Miss  Barrow. 

Have  you  seen  her  take  her  medicine  herself  more  than  once? — No. 

Then  what  do  you  mean  when  you  say  that  when  Miss  Barrow  wanted 
her  medicine  she  used  to  get  it? — She  used  to  turn  over  and  reach  out  and 
get  it. 

Reach  out  and  get  it  from  the  bottle,  or  from  the  glass  where  it  was 
poured  out? — She  used  to  pour  it  out  herself. 

Then  you  have  seen  her  pour  it  out  herself  more  than  once.  Is 
that  what  you  mean? — No,  I  have  seen  her  pour  it  out  once  and  take  it. 

But  only  once? — At  other  times  Mrs.  Seddon  used  to  pour  it  out. 

You  told  us  you  saw  Miss  Barrow  once  reach  out  and  take  it  herself? 
Can  you  tell  us  how  long  that  was  before  the  last  night? — No,  I  cannot 
remember  that.  I  cannot  remember  seeing  any  medicine  given  to  her 
at  all  on  this  night  before  I  went  away  for  the  last  time  from  her.  I 
cannot  tell  how  many  times  she  sent  me  down  for  Mrs.  Seddon.  She 
waked  me  up  to  send  me  down  for  Mrs.  Seddon  because  she  felt  so  ill, 

Si 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Ernest  Grant 


and  I  went  down  and  told  Mrs.  Seddon,  and  she  came  up.     Mr.  Seddon 
was  there  several  times  when  he  sent  me  back  to  my  own  room. 

Did  Miss  Barrow  tell  you  what  it  was  that  you  were  to  tell  Mrs. 
Seddon  ? — No,  she  only  used  to  tell  me  to  go  down  to  call  her. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  not  objecting  to  this,  because  I  am  going 
to  ask  about  some  conversations,  and  they  will  be  admissible  in  cross- 
examination. 

Examination  continued — Did  she  tell  you  to  tell  Mrs.  Seddon  that 
she  had  pains  in  her  stomach? — Yes.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  was  the 
first  time  I  was  sent  down  to  fetch  Mrs.  Seddon  or  not. 

Do  you  remember  when  Mrs.  Seddon  came  up  whether  she  made  a  hot 
flannel  and  put  it  on  Miss  Barrow? — Yes.  I  cannot  remember  whether 
that  was  the  first  time  she  came  up  or  not. 

Can  you  remember  whether  Mr.  Seddon  was  there  then? — I  do  not 
think  he  was. 

During  that  night  did  you  see  Miss  Barrow  being  sick  at  all? — Yes. 
More  than  once? — Yes.     She  was  badly  sick. 

Was  that  only  during  part  of  the  night,  or  did  that  continue  whilst 
you  were  with  her? — Only  part  of  the  night. 

Do  you  remember  her  getting  out  of  bed  at  all  and  sitting  on  the 
floor  during  that  night? — Yes. 

Can  you  remember  whether  that  was  before  you  had  been  sent  down 
for  Mrs.  Seddon  or  after? — After. 

Do  you  remember  whether  during  the  time  you  were  with  her  that 
night  she  got  out  of  bed  more  than  once? — No,  I  do  not  remember. 
Do  you  remember  her  saying  "I  am  going"? — Yes. 
What  did  she  do  then? — -Sat  down  on  the  floor. 

Did  she  seem  in  great  pain  then? — Yes.  She  remained  on  the  floor  till 
Mr.  Seddon  came  up  and  put  her  in  bed  again. 

You  said  "till  Mr.  Seddon  came  up."  Did  Mrs.  Seddon  come  too? — 
Yes.  (Shown  exhibit  2.)  I  remember  seeing  that  box.  I  used  to  see  it  in 
Miss  Barrow's  big  black  trunk.  I  have  seen  Miss  Barrow  taking  money  out 
of  that  box,  but  I  never  saw  inside  the  box  while  she  was  alive.  I  saw 
her  put  the  box  on  the  bed  and  turn  out  on  to  the  bed  some  of  what  was  in 
the  box.  It  was  gold ;  sometimes  she  used  to  count  it,  and  sometimes  she 
used  to  take  one  out.  I  could  not  tell  how  much  there  was.  I  noticed  one 
bag  inside.  I  think  I  saw  another  one.  I  have  seen  Miss  Barrow  put  money 
into  a  bag  in  the  cash  box.  I  have  seen  her  come  up  from  the  dining-room 
with  some  pieces  of  gold.  That  was  the  dining-room  on  the  ground  floor 
to  the  left  when  you  come  in  at  the  front  door. 

Have  you  seen  how  many  pieces  of  gold  she  brought  up  from  the 
dining-room? — Yes,  three.  I  cannot  tell  how  many  times  I  saw  that,  but 
it  was  more  than  once.  She  put  the  three  pieces  of  gold  that  I  saw  her 
bring  up  from  the  dining-room  into  the  cash  box.  When  I  went  to  Southend 
for  the  holiday  Miss  Barrow  took  me.  It  was  before  she  took  me  to 
Southend  for  the  holiday  that  I  last  saw  her  count  the  money.  It  was  when 
I  came  back  from  the  holiday  at  Southend  that  she  was  taken  ill. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Mrs.  Seddon  and  Mr.  Seddon 
were  very  kind  to  Miss  Barrow,  were  they  not? — Yes. 

And  Miss  Barrow  was  very  fond  of  them  both? — Yes. 

52 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Ernest  Grant 

I  think  you  said  you  were  very  much  happier  at  the  Seddons  than  you 
were  at  the  Vonderahes? — Yes. 

They  were  very  kind  to  you,  were  they  not? — Yes. 

And  after  Miss  Barrow  died  you  went  on  living  with  Mr.  Seddon  and 
his  children? — Yes. 

And  you  were  very  happy  there? — Yes. 

They  were  kind  to  you? — Yes. 

And  you  went  to  school,  did  you  not? — Yes. 

Used  to  go  to  school  every  day? — Yes. 

I  want  you  to  try  and  remember  the  time  when  you  went  to  Southend 
before  Miss  Barrow  was  so  ill,  not  the  last  time  you  went,  but  the  time 
before  that.  Miss  Barrow  and  you  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  all  went  down 
to  Southend  together,  did  you  not? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  how  long  you  stayed  there,  if  at  all? — A  week-end. 

Then  did  you  all  come  back  together? — Yes. 

And  then  did  you  go  back  to  school? — Yes. 

Whilst  Miss  Barrow  was  ill  you  were  still  at  school  every  day,  were 
you  not? — Yes. 

What  time  in  the  morning  did  you  get  up  to  go  to  school? — I  cannot 
remember. 

But  it  was  early,  was  it? — Yes. 

You  did  not  always  sleep  with  Miss  Barrow,  did  you — you  sometimes 
slept  in  your  own  bed? — Yes. 

But  I  understand  when  Miss  Barrow  was  ill  you  slept  with  her  nearly 
all  the  time? — Yes. 

I  do  not  know  whether  you  remember  on  one  day  about  ten  days 
before  that  last  night  you  told  us  you  went  to  your  own  bed  that  night, 
did  you  not? — Yes. 

You  remember  that? — Yes. 

Did  Miss  Barrow  have  a  cup  of  tea  in  the  early  morning  brought  to 
her  bedroom? — (No  answer.) 

A  cup  of  something,  whether  it  was  tea  or  not — when  she  was  well? — 
Yes. 

When  she  was  ill  did  it  go  on  or  not? — I  cannot  remember. 

Who  used  to  bring  the  tea  in  the  morning  to  her? — Maggie  Seddon. 

Was  it  Maggie  Seddon  or  was  it  the  girl  Chater? — Maggie  Seddon. 

Not  Mary? — No. 

Did  not  Mary  bring  the  tea  sometimes? — No. 

Did  Miss  Barrow  before  she  was  ill  go  out  and  buy  things  for  her  own 
food?— Yes. 

You  used  to  go  with  her  sometimes,  did  you  not? — Yes. 

Did  you  not  go  messages? — No. 

Did  you  go  out  walking  with  her? — Yes. 

Did  she  take  you  to  school  in  the  morning,  and  come  and  fetch  you 
back? — Yes. 

How  soon  after  she  came  back  from  Southend  was  it  that  she  com- 
plained of  pains? — I  don't  know  how  long  after  it  was. 

How  soon  after  you  came  back  from  Southend  did  you  sleep  in  her 
room? — I  don't  know. 

53 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Ernest  Grant 


How  many  nights  had  you  been  sleeping  in  her  room  before  the  last 
night? — I  don't  know  how  many  nights  before. 

Whilst  Miss  Barrow  was  ill,  of  course,  you  were  not  there  in  the  day- 
time?— No. 

When  you  came  back  at  night  did  you  find  a  very  nasty  smell  in  the 
room;  do  you  remember  that? — I  did  not  notice  any. 

Do  you  remember  the  doctor  putting  up  a  sheet  in  front  of  the 
door? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  what  carbolic  smells  like? — I  remember  smelling  it. 

You  did  not  notice  a  nasty  smell  in  the  house,  did  you? — No. 

Do  you  remember  the  doctor  giving  Miss  Barrow  first  of  all  a  thick 
white  medicine,  rather  milky-looking? — Yes. 

Did  you  ever  see  that? — Yes. 

She  did  not  like  that,  did  she? — No. 

She  would  not  take  it? — Xo. 

I  think  you  said  the  or>ly  time  you  ever  saw  Mr.  Seddon  give  her  any 
medicine  it  was  white  stuff  like  water? — Yes. 

It  was  not  the  thick  milky  stuff,  was  it? — No. 

Do  you  remember  the  second  medicine,  which  was  a  medicine  which 
had  to  be  done  in  two  glasses?  Do  you  remember  he  put  one  in  the  one 
glass  and  one  in  the  other,  and  poured  the  two  together,  and  when  you 
poured  them  together  they  began  to  fizz? — Yes. 

That  was  the  medicine  she  did  like? — Yes. 

Was  that  the  medicine  that  you  saw  Mr.  Seddon  give  her? — Yes. 

That  is  the  only  time  you  saw  him  give  her  medicine.  Do  you 
remember  Miss  Barrow  had  very  bad  breathing  sometimes,  she  found  it 
very  difficult  to  breathe? — Yes. 

Did  you  ever  see  her  take  anything  for  that — little  lozenges,  or  things 
like  little  lozenges? — Yes. 

Did  you  ever  by  chance  see  the  bottle  she  used  to  take  them  out  of  ? — 
No. 

I  have  just  roughly  drawn  it.  Did  you  ever  see  a  little  bottle  that 
sort  of  shape?  (Sketch  handed.) — No. 

Did  you  ever  see  her  take  things  for  her  cough  out  of  a  little  bottle 
like  that?— No. 

Did  you  ever  see  a  little  bottle  like  that  in  her  possession? — No. 

Dr.  Willcox  has  given  me  this  bottle — was  it  a  bottle  of  that  sort 
of  shape? — No,  I  have  not  seen  any. 

Did  she  often  take  these  things  for  her  asthma — did  she  cough  at  the 
time  she  had  it,  or  did  she  go  like  that?  (Counsel  took  several  short 
breaths)? — I  cannot  remember  how  she  went. 

But  it  was  difficult  for  her  to  breathe? — Yes. 

Do  you  remember  if  she  ever  took  them  when  she  was  out  of  doors  ? — 
No,  I  don't  remember. 

When  Mr.  Seddon  asked  you  to  go  into  your  own  bedroom  that  night, 
that  was  because  you  were  being  woke  up? — Yes. 

He  told  you  to  go  to  your  own  room  and  get  some  sleep? — Yes. 

And  when  you  say  "several  times,"  it  happened  twice  or  three  times, 
did  it  not? — Yes.  I  don't  know  exactly  how  many  times. 

You  remember  Mary  Chater? — Yes. 
54 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Ernest  Grant 


You  say  that  you  only  saw  her  once  in  Miss  Barrow's  room? — Yes. 

Was  that  once  when  she  came  to  see  Miss  Barrow  when  Miss  Barrow 
was  ill? — Yes. 

About  what  time  was  it  that  you  went  to  school,  do  you  remember? — 
I  cannot  tell  what  time. 

About  what  time  did  you  come  away  from  school? — Twelve  o'clock  in 
the  morning  and  half-past  four  in  the  evening. 

Miss  Barrow  took  you  in  the  morning,  brought  you  back  to  dinner, 
took  you  again  after  your  dinner,  and  brought  you  back  again? — Yes. 

While  Miss  Barrow  was  ill  who  took  you  to  school? — Nobody. 

You  went  by  yourself? — Yes. 

Sometimes  Miss  Barrow  got  cross,  did  she  not? — Yes. 

She  was  very  deaf,  was  she  not? — Yes. 

You  had  to  shout  into  her  ear  to  make  her  hear  what  you  had  to 
say? — Yes. 

And  did  you  sometimes  repeat  what  other  people  had  said  so  that  she 
could  hear  it? — Yes. 

She  used  to  get  annoyed,  did  she  not,  because  you  got  up  early  and 
ran  round  the  room  like  a  child  in  the  morning?  I  suppose  that  made  her 
cross  sometimes,  didn't  it? — I  don't  think  so. 

Did  you  not  get  up  early  while  she  was  still  in  bed  and  run  round 
the  room? — Yes. 

And  she  complained  about  it? — Yes. 

Once  she  said  she  would  throw  herself  out  of  the  window,  did  she  not? 
—Yes. 

Because  you  annoyed  her.  Do  you  remember  Miss  Barrow  saying 
anything  about  her  relations — did  she  tell  you  that  her  relations  had  not 
been  kind  to  her? — Yes. 

Sometimes  you  had  meals  with  Miss  Barrow  and  sometimes  you  had 
them  in  the  kitchen? — Yes. 

When  you  say  the  kitchen,  do  you  mean  the  little  kitchen  near  Miss 
Barrow's  room  or  the  kitchen  downstairs? — The  little  kitchen  upstairs. 

I  want  you  to  bring  your  mind  to  the  night  that  Miss  Barrow  was  so 
ill.  Do  you  remember  what  time  it  was  when  you  went  to  bed  that  night? 
—No. 

Miss  Barrow  was  in  bed  when  you  went  to  bed,  of  course? — Yes. 

Did  you  notice  anything  in  the  room  that  night  that  you  had  not 
noticed  before?  The  room  was  very  nasty  smelling — very  nasty  all  night 
— did  you  not  notice  it? — No,  I  did  not  notice  it. 

Do  you  smell  things  easily,  or  do  you  not — do  you  smell  things  very 
easily,  or  do  you  find  it  very  difficult  to  smell? — (No  answer.) 

(From  the  way  he  speaks,  I  should  think  he  had  adenoids.)  Never 
mind.  How  long  had  you  been  in  bed  before  Miss  Barrow  asked  you 
to  fetch  Mrs.  Seddon? — I  don't  know;  I  went  to  sleep,  and  then  she 
woke  me  up  again. 

Was  it  dark  when  you  woke? — Yes. 

Was  the  weather  very  hot  about  this  time? — Yes. 

Very  hot  indeed? — Yes. 

Had  you  been  troubled  very  much  with  the  flies? — (No  answer.) 

55 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Ernest  Grant 


Do  you  remember  Miss  Barrow  saying  anything  to  you  about  the 
flies? — No. 

There  were  a  great  many  flies,  were  there  not? — Yes. 

They  were  all  over  the  place? — Yes. 

So  far  as  you  are  concerned,  you  cannot  remember  whether  Miss 
Barrow  ever  said  anything  to  you  about  the  flies? — No. 

Do  you  know  whether  she  complained  about  the  flies  to  anybody 
else? — Yes. 

Did  you  hear  the  flies  talked  about? — Yes. 

Were  things  like  this  lying  about  with  a  picture  of  a  fly  on  it,  and 
"Housefly,  kill  it!"  like  that?— No. 

You  did  not  see  one? — No. 

You  can  read,  can  you  not? — Not  much. 

Do  you  remember  anything  being  got  to  kill  the  flies  with? — No. 

Perhaps  you  would  not  know  whether  there  was  or  not? — No. 

The  first  time  you  went  down  to  fetch  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon,  Mrs. 
Seddon  came  up,  and  you  think  Mr.  Seddon  came  with  her? — Yes. 

And  the  first  thing  that  Mrs.  Seddon  did  was  to  make  a  flannel  hot 
and  put  it  on  Miss  Barrow's  stomach? — Yes. 

Did  that  seem  to  give  her  some  relief  from  the  pain? — Yes. 

Were  you  in  the  room  at  any  time  when  Miss  Barrow  had  to  use 
something  in  the  room  when  she  had  diarrhoaa? — Yes. 

Pretty  often,  was  it  not? — No,  I  don't  think  so. 

Anyhow,  she  was  very  sick,  too? — Yes. 

And  she  got  out  of  bed  once  that  night? — Yes. 

Was  that  after  Mrs.  Seddon  had  put  the  hot  flannel  on  her  stomach 
or  not? — After,  I  think. 

Do  you  remember? — I  think  it  was  after. 

Then  it  was  after  the  second  time  I  suppose  that  you  had  been  sent 
down  for  them  that  she  got  out  of  bed  and  got  on  to  the  floor  ? — I  do  not 
know  which  time  it  was. 

Anyhow,  you  were  very  frightened  then? — Yes. 

And  she  said,   "I  am  going"? — Yes. 

And  both  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  lifted  her  up  and  put  her  back  into 
the  bed?— Yes. 

You  knew  old  Mr.  Seddon? — Yes. 

You  used  to  call  him  "Grandfather"? — Yes. 

On  the  last  night  that  we  have  talked  about  were  Mr.  Seddon 's  boys 
sleeping  upstairs  with  the  grandfather? — Yes. 

You  do  not  remember,  do  you,  a  lady  coming  to  stay  with  a  little 
girl? — Yes. 

You  used  to  go  to  bed  at  all  sorts  of  times — no  regular  time? — Yes. 

Before  Miss  Barrow  was  ill  did  you  go  for  walks  with  her  in  the 
park — Tollington  Park? — Yes. 

Did  you  meet  a  good  many  people  there? — No. 

Did  you  go  to  shops  with  her  ever? — Yes. 

You  used  to  meet  Mrs.  Vonderahe  sometimes? — Yes. 

You  knew  her,  of  course,  because  you  lived  in  the  house  there? — 
Yes. 

I  think  you  went  away  with  Inspector  Ward? — Yes. 

And  they  have  been  looking  after  you.  You  told  us  about  this  time 
56 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Ernest  Grant 


when  she  went  down  and  fetched  three  pieces  of  gold  and  brought  them 
up  and  put  them  into  the  box.  You  cannot  say  how  many  times  she 
did  that? — No. 

You  say  you  saw  one  bag  of  money  in  it,  and  you  thought  there  was 
another  in  the  box? — Yes. 

What  sort  of  bag  was  it — was  it  a  bag  like  either  of  these  (produced)? 
— No. 

Was  it  a  paper  bag? — Yes. 

Was  it  a  blue  bag,  or  brown,  or  grey,  or  what? — Greyish  colour,  or 
green. 

That  sort  of  colour  (bag  produced)? — Yes. 

Was  it  as  big  a  bag  as  that? — Bigger,  I  think. 

When  it  had  money  in  it,  how  big  did  it  look? — I  don't  know 
exactly  how  big  it  was. 

Can  you  tell  us  whether  the  bag  seemed  to  be  full  or  half-full,  or 
what?— Half-full,  I  believe. 

Do  you  know  why  Miss  Barrow  left  Mrs.  Vonderahe's? — Because  she 
did  not  like  the  way  she  cooked  the  food. 

Anything  else? — I  cannot  remember  anything  else. 

She  was  rather  particular  about  her  food,  was  she  not? — Yes. 

You  remember  the  time  when  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook  lived  at  Tollington 
Park?  When  you  first  went  there? — Yes. 

And  you  remember  when  Miss  Barrow  was  very  angry  with  him 
because  they  had  taken  you  out  for  a  walk  and  left  her  at  home? — Yes. 

And  she  told  them  to  go? — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Were  you  there  when  she 
told  them  to  go? — Mr.  Seddon  told  them  to  go. 

Do  you  know  what  a  fly-paper  is? — I  have  seen  one. 

When  did  you  see  one? — When  I  was  down  at  Southend  at  Mrs. 
Henderson's  house. 

Was  that  the  first  time  you  had  seen  one? — I  don't  know. 

You  were  at  Mrs.  Henderson's  after  that  night  when  you  were 
sleeping  with  Miss  Barrow  when  she  was  so  ill? — Yes. 

You  were  with  Mrs.   Henderson  some  little  time? — Yes. 

And  then  went  to  Mrs.  Jeffreys;  is  that  right? — Yes. 

Did  you  ever  see  any  fly-papers  in  Miss  Barrow's  room? — No. 

Or  anywhere  in  Miss  Barrow's  four  rooms? — No. 

Or  in  Seddon's  rooms? — No. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — When  you  say  you 
saw  that  fly-paper  down  at  Southend,  what  sort  was  it — was  it  one  that 
flies  stick  to — a  sticky  thing? — Yes,  a  sticky  thing  that  flies  stick  to. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Did  Maggie  Seddon  ever  show  you  a 
fly-paper? — No. 

Further  re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Did  you  ever  see  a 
fly-paper  like  that?  (Handed.) — No. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Is  that  one  of  Mather's? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  Mr.  Thorley  will  produce  the  packets 
in  which  they  are  sold. 

(The  envelope  containing  this  fly-paper  was  put  in  and  marked  No. 
134.1 

57 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mrs.  Annie  Henderson 

Mrs.  ANNIE  HENDERSON,  examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  live  at  Riviera 
Drive,  Southchurch,  near  Southend-on-Sea.  The  boy  Ernie  Grant  stayed 
with  me  from  14th  to  28th  September  of  last  year. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr  MARSHALL  HALL — Mr.  Seddon  never  came  to 
the  house  while  Ernie  was  there. 

Mrs.  LEAH  JEFFREYS,  examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  live  at  Briar  Villa 
Southend-on-Sea.  I  remember  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  coming  to  my  house. 
The  first  time  Mr.  Seddon  came  to  me  was  on  5th  August,  and  he  stayed 
until  the  8th.  Miss  Barrow  came  into  my  house  several  times.  She 
only  came  in  to  meals,  she  had  not  rooms  there.  She  came  in  to  three 
or  four  meals,  and  went  away  on  the  8th.  She  seemed  to  be  very  well 
at  that  time.  I  next  saw  Mr.  Seddon  on  22nd  September,  when  he  stayed 
with  me  until  2nd  October.  He  had  with  him  Mrs.  Seddon  and  two 
daughters  and  a  baby.  Ernie  Grant  was  not  staying  with  me,  but  he 
came  in  several  times  to  see  them.  Ernie  Grant  never  stayed  with  me 
at  any  time. 

Did  you  hear  Mr.  Seddon  say  anything  to  the  boy,  Ernie  Grant, 
about  Miss  Barrow  in  September? — He  asked  him  if  he  knew  she  was 
dead,  and  the  boy  said,  "  No,"  so  Mr.  Seddon  said,  "  Oh,  yes,  she  is  dead." 
I  think  that  was  either  22nd  or  23rd  September.  I  am  not  sure  whether 
it  was  the  same  day  or  the  day  after  they  came. 

MART  ELIZABETH  ELLEN  CHATER,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS 
— I  am  now  living  at  Compton  Terrace.  I  was  general  servant  to  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Seddon  at  63  Tollington  Park.  I  was  with  them  for  nearly 
twelve  months,  and  I  left  on  1st  February.  During  the  time  I  was  there 
there  was  another  servant  employed  in  the  house,  a  Mrs.  Rudd,  who  came 
as  charwoman,  but  did  not  live  in  the  house.  There  was  no  other 
servant  kept.  I  slept  in  the  room  where  Miss  Margaret  Seddon  and 
her  youngest  sister  slept.  My  room  was  below  Miss  Barrow's  floor.  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Seddon  slept  on  the  same  floor  as  we  were  sleeping  on.  My 
room  was  at  the  back,  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon's  room  was  in  the  front. 
The  room  which  I  slept  in  was  one  which  had  a  partition  in  it.  On  the 
other  side  of  the  partition  in  that  room  there  slept  Mr.  William  Seddon, 
that  is  the  eldest  son,  Freddie  Seddon,  and  his  grandfather,  when  I  went 
there.  Nobody  slept  on  the  top  floor  except  Miss  Barrow  and  Ernie 
Grant.  Mrs.  Seddon  cooked  the  food  for  herself  and  her  husband  and 
children  downstairs  in  our  kitchen.  She  also  cooked  the  food  for  Miss 
Barrow,  and  Miss  Margaret  cooked  it,  too.  They  cooked  that  food  up 
in  Miss  Barrow's  kitchen  on  the  top  floor.  I  never  cooked  any  food  for 
Miss  Barrow,  nor  did  I  ever  wait  upon  her.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with 
her  at  all.  I  remember  her  going  away  to  Southend  for  a  short  time, 
and  her  being  ill  after  she  came  back.  I  used  to  open  the  door  to  Dr. 
Sworn,  who  came  to  see  her.  From  the  time  the  doctor  came  I  never 
saw  Miss  Barrow  downstairs  at  all.  I  think  she  always  kept  to 
her  room.  I  cannot  remember  the  date  the  doctor  came,  but  I  remember 
him  coming  quite  well.  During  Miss  Barrow's  last  illness  Mrs.  Seddon 
cooked  her  food  upstairs  in  Miss  Barrow's  room.  I  never  saw  any  of  the 
food  prepared  for  Miss  Barrow.  I  have  never  been  into  Miss  Barrow's 
58 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

kitchen  except  once  when  Miss  Barrow  was  out  before  her  severe  illness. 
During  Miss  Barrow's  last  illness  I  never  saw  any  food  prepared  for  her 
downstairs  in  the  kitchen.  I  knew  that  some  Liebig's  extract  came,  but 
I  did  not  see  Mrs.  Seddon  prepare  it.  I  did  not  see  any  Valentine's 
meat  juice  in  the  house,  but  I  knew  it  came.  I  did  not  see  any  actually 
prepared.  I  never  went  into  Miss  Barrow's  room  where  she  slept. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — You  have  three  times  been 
asked  by  my  learned  friend  if  you  saw  any  food  prepared  downstairs 
during  Miss  Barrow's  last  illness,  and  three  times  you  have  said  "  No  "  1 — 
Yes. 

Now,  I  ask  you  the  fourth  time,  did  you  ever  see  any  food  prepared 
downstairs  during  Miss  Barrow's  illness? — No. 

Did  you  say  this  before  the  magistrates,  "  She  had  light  food  during 
her  illness — Liebig's  Extract,  rice  pudding,  and  sago,  and  Valentines.  I 
saw  them  prepared  downstairs  ' '  1 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — First  of  all,  do  you  remember  saying  that? 
— I  did  not  see  Mrs.  Seddon  actually  prepare  it. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Not  only  once  did  you  say  it,  as  I  suggest 
to  you,  but  you  were  recalled  after  Mrs.  Seddon  had  been  arrested,  and 
this  is  what  you  then  said,  "  I  did  not  see  Mrs.  Seddon  prepare  any  food 
upstairs.  Downstairs  I  have  seen  her  prepare  Liebig's  and  Valentine's 
meat  juice,  and  gruel  sometimes,  and  light  puddings  once  or  twice."  That 
is  a  very  specific  statement.  Why  have  you  said  four  times  to-day  that 
you  never  saw  any  food  prepared  downstairs  ? — I  said  it  was  done  upstairs 
in  Miss  Barrow's  room. 

You  could  not  see  it  done  upstairs,  because  you  never  went  upstairs? — 
No,  I  never  went  upstairs. 

You  are  shown  in  both  those  statements  which  have  been  taken  down 
and  which  you  have  signed  as  saying  that  you  had  seen  it  prepared 
downstairs.  Why  have  you  altered  that? — I  have  not  seen  her  preparing 
it ;  I  knew  she  was  preparing  it,  but  I  was  not  there  to  see  her  preparing  it. 

On  two  different  occasions  at  intervals  you  said  the  same  thing.  First 
of  all,  early  in  the  evidence  you  will  see,  "Mrs.  Seddon  and  Maggie 
Seddon  prepared  Miss  Barrow's  food  in  Miss  Barrow  kitchen,  except" — 
you  say  the  same  thing  again — "  the  Valentine's  meat  juice,  Liebig's,  and 
things  like  that."  A  little  later  on  you  say,  "  She  had  light  food  during 
her  illness,  Liebig's  extract,  rice  puddings  and  sago,  and  Valentine's.  I 
saw  them  prepared  downstairs."  These  are  the  exact  words,  "  I  saw  some 
light  puddings  prepared  downstairs,  and  the  meat  juice  " — it  is  a  more 
specific  statement  than  I  thought  it  was — "  and  the  meat  juice  was  sent 
up  in  a  cup  and  saucer,"  so  there  is  no  question  of  a  mistake.  Now, 
when  you  were  recalled  in  consequence  of  Mrs.  Seddon's  arrest  on  the 
19th  January  you  said  this,  "  I  did  not  see  Mrs.  Seddon  prepare  any  food 
upstairs.  Downstairs  I  have  seen  her  prepare  Liebig's  and  Valentine's 
meat  juice,  and  gruel  sometimes,  and  light  puddings  once  or  twice." 
That  is  three  specific  statements  made  at  different  times  in  which  you 
say  that  you  have  seen  these  things  prepared  downstairs.  Now,  you  say 
you  never  saw  them  prepared.  Why  have  you  changed  your  story? — I  did 
not  see  her  doing  it.  I  knew  she  was,  because  I  heard  her,  but  I  did 

59 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

not  see  her  doing  it.       When  she  used  to  be  taking  them  up  they  were 
for  Miss  Barrow. 

Why  do  you  wear  nurse's  uniform? — Well,  I  used  to  be  a  nurse  years 
ago,  but  I  was  not  engaged  as  a  nurse  at  the  time  I  went  to  Mrs.  Seddon's. 

Do  you  always  wear  a  nurse's  uniform? — Well,  I  have  done  since  I 
have  been  in  London,  and  before  I  came  to  London. 

I  think  your  father  was  an  inspector  of  nuisances? — Yes,  Thomas  John 
Chater,  of  Rugby. 

I  think  you  have  a  cousin — Frederick? — Yes,  a  surgeon-dentist. 

Where  is  he  living  now? — I  do  not  know  exactly.  I  had  a  letter 
from  Nottingham  the  other  week  saying  he  had  not  lived  there  for  five 
years. 

Is  he  a  man  who  is  a  confirmed  invalid? — Well,  he  has  not  been  in 
good  health ;  so  I  understand  from  a  letter  I  have  had. 

Mentally  or  physically? — Well,  I  do  not  know  exactly  whether  it  is 
mental  or  not. 

Is  he  at  the  present  moment  in  a  house  of  detention? — Not  that  I 
know  of. 

In  an  asylum? — Not  that  I  know  of. 

You  are  quite  sure  of  that? — Certain. 

Have  you  any  immediate  relative  in  an  asylum  at  the  present  moment? 
— Not  that  I  know  of. 

That  you  swear? — Yes. 

I  think  your  first  employment  was  with  a  Miss  Nicholson  at  Rugby  ? — 
Yes. 

You  took  charge  of  a  mental  case? — Well,  I  used  to  be  there  with 
her,  yes. 

And  you  stayed  with  her  until  she  died? — No,  I  was  not  with  her 
until  she  died ;  I  was  there  some  time  before  she  died. 

Then  I  think  you  went  to  Leamington? — Oh,  yes.  I  was  at  Leaming- 
ton nearly  all  the  time — a  large  incurable  hospital  at  Keswick  Road.  Miss 
Armitage  used  to  be  the  sister  in  charge  there. 

That  was  a  private  hospital  for  incurables? — Yes. 

Then  I  think  you  went  as  a  nurse  in  a  large  hospital  near  Liverpool  ? — 
Yes,  Brownlow  Hill. 

And  stayed  there  about  two  months? — Yes. 

Then  I  think,  in  1891,  you  went  to  Canada  for  four  and  half  years? — 
Yes,  I  was  in  Quebec  four  and  a  half  years. 

Again   as  a  nurse? — Yes. 

In  the  hospital  and  for  doctors  at  Quebec? — Yes. 

You  came  back  to  England  and  went  to  a  coffee  tavern  at  Rugby,  I 
think? — Yes,  I  was  there  boarding  until  Miss  Nicholson  engaged  me. 

Then  I  think  you  first  took  a  situation  as  a  general  servant  at  Fern- 
tower  Road,  where  you  stayed  about  four  months? — Yes. 

Then  I  think  you  went  to  a  home  for  discharged  servants  at  Mildmay 
Park?— Yes. 

Then  for  another  short  time  in  Highbury  Place? — Yes. 

Did  you  subsequently  go  into  service  with  a  Dr.  Day? — Yes. 

And  you  were  there  twelve  months? — Nearly  twelve  months,  yes. 
60 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

Then  you  went  to  another  place  at  Kelross  Road,  Highbury? — Yes, 
that  was  Colonel  Cooper's. 

Then  I  think  you  went  back  to  nursing  again? — Yes. 

Then  from  the  home  did  you  go  to  a  private  hospital  for  mentally 
incurable  cases? — Yes. 

From  Kelross  Road  you  went  to  Turle  Road,  Tollington  Park,  for  some 
sixteen  months,  as  a  nurse? — Yes. 

Then  I  think  you  went  to  a  registry  office  at  Upper  Street,  Islington, 
and  stayed  there? — Yes. 

And  then  as  a  general  servant  to  Mrs.  Page,  a  dressmaker? — Yes. 

You  stayed  there  ten  months? — Seventeen  months  altogether. 

Then  did  you  go  to  115  Queen's  Road,  Finsbury  Park,  and  stay  there 
for  four  months? — Yes. 

And  then  you  went  back  to  Mrs.  Page  and  stayed  the  other  seven 
months? — Yes. 

Then  you  were  out  of  a  situation  for  a  time? — Yes. 

Then  in  April,  1911,  you  went  to  Mrs.  Seddon's? — Yes. 

You  have  made  a  considerable  study,  have  you  not,  of  mental  cases? — 
Yes. 

And  medical  works? — Yes. 

And  you  have  taken  a  great  interest  in  medical  things  altogether? — 
Well,  I  have  taken  a  great  interest. 

Did  Miss  Barrow  suffer  greatly  from  asthma? — Well,  I  thought  she 
was  inclined  to  be  asthmatical  when  I  first  saw  her. 

Did  you  see  then  that  she  suffered  badly  from  asthma  ? — She  used  to  sit 
down,  and  I  used  to  notice  when  she  was  going  upstairs  that  she  had 
difficulty  in  breathing,  and  that  she  was  asthmatical. 

Did  you  know  she  had  a  great  difficulty  in  getting  her  breath? — Yes, 
I  used  to  notice  that. 

Did  you  ever  tell  her  anything  about  what  was  good  for  asthma? — No. 

You  say  no  relative  of  yours  is  in  a  lunatic  asylum? — Not  that  I  am 
aware  of. 

Has  not  your  brother  been  in  Hatton  Lunatic  Asylum  at  Warwick  for 
twenty  years? — I  do  not  know,  I  am  sure. 

Have  you  got  a  brother? — Well,  I  had  one  brother. 

Do  you  not  know  your  brother  has  been  in  a  lunatic  asylum  for 
twenty  years? — No. 

You  must  know  it  surely? — I  knew  he  used  to  go  there,  but  I  did 
not  know  he  was  there. 

Confined  in  a  lunatic  asylum  for  twenty  years? — (No  answer.) 

Have  you  any  doubt  whatever  about  it? — Well,  I  was  not  there  at 
the  time. 

Hatton  Lunatic  Asylum,  Warwick? — I  was  away  from  home  if  that 
is  the  case. 

On  more  than  one  occasion  have  threats  been  made  to  inquire  into 
>ur  mental  condition? — No. 

Do  you  know  Lord  Leigh? — Yes.       I  do  not  know  him  personally; 

father  knew  him  because  he  used  to  be  in  the  Warwickshire  Battalion. 

Were  you  constantly  talking  about  Lord  Leigh  as  a  friend  of  yours  ? — 
Ie  used  to  know  my  mother,  but  I  never  knew  him  myself  personally. 

61 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

But  have  you  constantly  talked  about  him  as  a  personal  friend  of 
yours  ? — No. 

Did  you  say  that  your  cousin,  F.  Chater,  had  done  you  a  great  injury 
by  taking  some  money  away  from  you? — I  never  had  any  money  taken 
from  me  by  him. 

Did  you  say  so  or  anything  of  the  kind  ? — No. 

Do  you  know  Miss  Magner? — Yes. 

Were  you  in  her  service? — Yes. 

Did  she  complain  of  your  mental  capacity? — No. 

Never — never  suggested  that? — No. 

That  you  were  not  responsible  for  your  actions? — No. 

Why  should  you  wear  a  nurse's  uniform  as  a  general  servant? — Well, 
•when  I  first  went  to  Leamington,  of  course,  I  was  engaged  there  as  a 
nurse,  and  Lord  Leigh,  I  believe,  was  the  president  of  that  home  for 
incurables  at  Leamington,  and  I  was  engaged  by  a  Miss  Armitage,  the 
matron. 

You  have  left  Tollington  Park  now? — Yes. 

You  left  on  1st  February? — Yes. 

Did  you  begin  to  break  the  crockery? — No,  there  was  a  lot  broken 
before  I  left. 

Did  you  break  all  the  crockery,  and  say,  "  I  am  going ;  they  will 
arrest  me  next"? — No,  I  made  no  such  remark. 

You  were  with  Harrington  for  some  time  about  six  years  ago? — Yes. 

Were  you  engaged  there  as  a  nurse? — Yes,  £2  a  month. 

Did  she  complain  that  you  were  very  eccentric  and  incapable  of  doing 
your  work? — No. 

Do  you  remember  occasions  when  she  used  to  send  you  out  to  the  iron- 
monger's and  you  went  to  the  draper's? — No. 

Did  you  insist  upon  wearing  a  uniform  at  that  place? — Well,  she  always 
used  to  allow  me  to  wear  it. 

Did  she  remonstrate  with  you  for  wearing  it? — Oh,  dear  no ;  I  left 
there  at  the  time  she  went  to  Scarborough  on  a  visit. 

When  you  were  with  Dr.  Day  did  you  suddenly  break  out  into  violent 
fits  of  shouting  and  say  that  people  were  after  you? — No.  Nothing  of  the 
kind.  I  had  too  much  to  do  to  shout  about  his  place. 

Never  mind  whether  you  had  too  much  to  do,  did  you  shout  at 
imaginary  persons  ? — No. 

Did  Dr.  Day  represent  to  you  that  you  were  quite  irresponsible? — No. 

Do  you  know  Mrs.  George  Chater,  of  Bridget  Street,  Rugby? — Yes. 

Did  you  stay  with  her  some  little  time  1 — I  think  I  was  with  her  about 
a  month. 

Where  is  Mrs.  Chater's  husband? — I  Jo  not  know.  I  haven't  one, 
that  is  certain. 

Is  her  husband  your  brother? — Yes. 

Yet  you  do  not  know  where  he  is? — Yes. 

Is  that  the  brother  I  was  asking  you  about  just  now  who,  I  suggest, 
has  been  for  twenty  years  in  a  lunatic  asylum? — I  suppose  so. 

Have  you  any  other  brother? — No,  not  that  I  know  of;  I  have  one 
dead. 

Yes,  but  have  you  any  brother  alive? — No. 
62 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Cbater 

You  see  you  have  made  a  very  important  statement  in  this  case,  a 
statement  that  you  have  seen  Valentine's  meat  juice  and  the  gruel  and 
the  puddings  prepared  by  Mrs.  Seddon  downstairs? — I  knew  that  she  did 
prepare  them. 

You  have  sworn  three  times  that  you  have  seen  her  do  it,  not  that 
you  knew  that  she  did  it.  The  Attorney-General,  who  opened  this  case, 
has  suggested,  you  know,  to  the  jury  that  it  was  in  the  preparation  of 
these  things,  the  gruel,  or  the  Valentine's  beef  juice,  that  arsenic  was 
added.  What  do  you  now  say?  Have  you  ever  seen  Mrs.  Seddon  prepare 
any  of  these  things  or  not? — I  knew  she  did  prepare  them. 

Have  you  ever  seen  her? — No,  sir,  I  would  tell  you  if  I  had. 

Then  why  did  you  swear  three  times  before  the  magistrate  that  you 
did? — (No  answer.) 

What  time  did  Miss  Barrow  get  up  in  the  morning? — She  was  always 
up  in  time  to  see  Ernest  to  school. 

Did  she  have  an  early  cup  of  tea  ? — Not  from  me. 

You  say  you  never  went  into  her  room  at  all? — No. 

Now,  Ernie  Grant  has  sworn  that  you  went  into  her  room  to  see  her 
once  when  she  was  ill  in  the  last  illness? — Yes,  but  that  was  when  Mrs. 
Seddon  was  there  and  the  doctor — I  had  to  go  there.  There  was  a  lady 
came. 

Why  did  you  say  you  did  not  go  into  the  room? — I  did  not  go  inside 
her  room;  I  was  outside  the  door. 

Have  you  ever  seen  any  fly-papers  in  this  house? — No. 

Never  ? — Never. 

Were  you  very  much  plagued  with  flies  in  August,  1911? — Well,  we 
had  a  great  many  in  the  kitchen,  but  we  never  had  fly-papers  in  the 
kitchen  that  I  know  of ;  I  never  saw  any. 

Were  you  plagued  all  over  the  place  with  flies  ? — Well,  we  had  a  great 
many  flies,  but  nothing  so  very  extraordinary. 

The  medical  officer  of  health  sent  round  a  circular  telling  people  to 
be  very  careful  to  get  the  flies  destroyed? — No. 

You  did  not  see  that? — No. 

Who  washed  up  the  things  that  came  out  of  Miss  Barrow's  room? — 
Miss  Margaret  used  to  do  it  when  she  first  did  her  work. 

Was  nothing  sent  downstairs  to  be  washed  ? — The  later  part,  of  course ; 
I  used  to  sometimes ;  things  that  came  down — glasses  and  little  things, 
perhaps  a  cup  and  saucer. 

You  know  a  good  deal  about  medicine? — Well,  I  do  not  know  much 
about  preparing  medicine  and  all  that  kind  of  thing. 

Did  you  tell  Mr.  Saint  that  arsenic  was  a  very  good  thing  for  asthma? 
— I  never  heard  of  such  a  thing  in  my  life. 

You  signed  a  written  statement,  did  you  not?  Just  look  at  that 
signature  and  tell  me  if  that  is  your  signature? — He  asked  me  that  question, 
but  I  said  not  that  I  knew  of.  I  never  used  any  of  it.  (Statement 
handed  to  witness.)  That  is  my  name. 

Did  you  ever  see  Miss  Barrow  take  any  little  pills? — No. 

Did  you  ever  see  much  of  her? — No,  except  when  she  used  to  come  in 
•when  I  used  to  answer  the  door  to  her. 

She  would  come  into  the  kitchen? — No,  go  straight  upstairs. 

63 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

Did  she  come  into  the  kitchen? — Not  to  sit  with  me. 

Do  you  really  mean  she  never  came  into  the  kitchen? — She  used  to 
come  into  the  garden  sometimes  when  I  first  went;  that  was  before  they 
went  away  to  Southend-on-Sea. 

Did  you  not  think  she  was  in  bad  health  all  the  time? — Well,  I  thought 
so  from  the  time  I  saw  her. 

She  always  appeared  tired,  did  she  not? — Yes,  always  resting  when 
she  came  in. 

And  she  had  diarrhoaa  and  sickness  long  before  this  illness? — Yes. 

Constantly? — Yes. 

It  was  very  warm  weather  at  the  time  you  knew  her? — Yes. 

Was  there  a  very  bad  smell  in  the  house  during  this  last  illness? — Yes. 

Dreadful,   unbearable? — Yes. 

You  know  they  had  to  put  up  carbolic  sheets? — Yes,  they  did. 

You  did  not  go  into  the  bedroom  to  look  after  that? — No. 

You  remember  the  relatives  coming  up  while  Miss  Barrow  was  so  ill, 
do  you  not? — I  think  so;  yes. 

Did  you  say  Miss  Barrow  did  not  come  to  your  kitchen  ? — She  used  to 
go  through  the  kitchen  into  the  garden  in  the  early  part  of  the  year 
when  I  first  went  there. 

Let  me  read  to  you  what  you  said  before  the  magistrate,  "  Miss 
Barrow  sometimes  used  to  come  down  to  the  kitchen  and  sit  awhile ;  and 
sometimes  interfered  with  me,  but  I  put  that  down  to  her  illness.  She 
was  very  irritable  sometimes.  I  never  quarrelled  or  had  words  with  her. 
She  was  not  a  heavy  woman.  She  had  difficulty  in  getting  her  breath, 
especially  after  her  going  up  and  down  stairs"? — Yes. 

When  you  say  that  she  was  not  a  heavy  woman,  she  was  not  a  thin 
woman,  was  she? — No. 

She  would  be  a  bigger  woman  than  Mrs.  Seddon  is? — Well,  I  suppose  so. 

Did  she  complain  of  the  way  you  did  your  work  at  Tollington  Park  ? — 
They  never  did  to  me.  I  do  not  know  what  they  did  afterwards. 

What  wages  did  you  get? — £12  a  year. 

And  soon  after  you  got  there  did  Mrs.  Seddon  say  she  would  not  keep 
you  any  longer  because  you  were  no  use  at  all? — Well,  once  she  said  some- 
thing about  making  some  alteration  or  something  of  the  kind,  and  I  had 
a  letter  that  had  been  written  to  me  about  a  fortnight  or  a  week  before • 

Did  you  implore  her  to  keep  you  on  as  you  had  nowhere  to  go  to? — Oh, 
no.  I  said,  "  If  you  wish  to  finish  with  my  services  I  will  take  the  offer 
that  is  offered  to  me  now,"  but  she  asked  me  to  remain,  so  I  did.  That 
was  Mrs.  Barnett,  of  Stapleton  Hall  Road. 

Did  you  ever  talk  to  her  about  your  friendship  with  Lord  Leigh? — 
Never,  because  I  never  knew  him  myself  personally. 

You  are  quite  sure  you  never  saw  any ? — Quite  sure — certain. 

What  was  I  going  to  ask  you? — (No  answer.) 

What  were  you  quite  sure  about? — I  said  I  never  knew  Lord  Leigh 
personally. 

No,  I  was  asking  you  about  something  else  altogether.  Are  you  quite 
sure  that  you  never  saw  any  fly-papers  of  that  sort  in  the  house  (a  Mather 
fly-paper  produced)? — Quite  certain. 

Not  in  saucers? — Positive. 
64 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

That  you  swear  to  1 — I  can  swear  that. 

Have  you  ever  seen  one  of  those  fly-papers  before  ? — No. 

Have  you  never  heard  of  those  fly-papers? — I  have  heard  of  them,  but 
I  have  never  bought  them  in  my  life. 

And  never  seen  them? — No. 

You  have  never  in  your  life  seen  fly-papers  of  that  kind? — The  only 
fly-papers  I  have  seen  is  the  ordinary  fly-paper. 

Have  you  not  seen  in  hospitals  or  anywhere  fly-papers  of  that  sort? — No. 

Never  in  your  life? — No. 

You  have  heard  of  them? — Yes. 

You  are  quite  sure  you  never  saw  any  in  Tollington  Park? — Yes. 

Did  Mrs.  Seddon  complain  to  you  that  you  were  really  not  responsible 
for  what  you  said? — No. 

Nothing  of  the  kind? — No. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — What  is  the  longest  time  you  have  been 
in  any  one  service? — Well,  I  think  in  Turle  Road,  Tollington  Park. 

What  is  the  name? — Mrs.  Roche  used  to  live  there. 

When  was  that? — Three  years  ago. 

How  long  were  you  in  her  service? — About  sixteen  months  altogether. 

You  were  with  a  Miss  Magner? — Yes. 

How  long  were  you  with  her? — About  four  months. 

Where  did  you  go  to  from  Miss  Magner's? — I  went  to  Mr.  Fry's 
registry  office,  and  boarded  there. 

Did  Miss  Magner  give  you  a  character? — I  never  went  for  one. 

You  went  to  the  registry  office  and  got  a  character  there? — No,  I 
stopped  there  until  I  had  another  situation  offered  me. 

Now,    as   regards   Mrs.    Harrington 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  should  like  to  know  where  we  are.  If  her 
cross-examination  as  to  her  supposed  mental  condition  and  as  to  the 
places  where  she  was  supposed  to  have  been  in  service,  and  where  she  says 
she  was,  is  to  credit,  and  to  credit  only,  then  her  answers  are  to  be  taken, 
and  if  her  answers  are  to  be  taken  you  need  not  re-examine,  need  you? 

Mr.  Mum — I  think,  my  lord,  I  can  add  something  to  the  effect  of  her 
answers  by  eliciting  how  long  she  was  in  service. 

How  long  were  you  with  Dr.  Day? — Nearly  twelve  months.  When  I 
left  Dr.  Day  I  was  boarding  at  the  Cambridge  Institute,  Holloway  Road. 

Did  you  get  a  character  from  him? — The  lady  that  engaged  me  was 
Mrs.  Barnett,  and  she  went  to  Dr.  Day  for  my  character,  and  that  was  the 
lady  that  wanted  to  engage  me  when  I  stayed  on  with  Mrs.  Seddon. 

So  you  referred  the  lady  you  went  to  after  Dr.  Day  to  Dr.  Day  for 
a  character? — Yes. 

Does  that  apply  to  your  other  situations — did  you  refer  to  the  persons 
you  had  been  with? — Yes,  sir,  yes. 

Did  you  ever  know  that  arsenic  was  good  for  asthma? — Never  in  my 
life. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — If  you  do  not  ask  this  question,  I  shall.  (To 
Witness) — Did  you  ever  administer  arsenic  to  Miss  Barrow? — No. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  not  suggesting  that  she  knowingly  adminis- 
tered arsenic  to  Miss  Barrow  for  a  moment. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Knowingly  or  unknowingly? — No,  sir. 

E  65 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mary  Elizabeth  Ellen  Chater 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  not  suggesting  for  a  moment  that  she 
did  it  knowingly. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  do  not  think  for  a  moment  you  meant  to 
do  so. 

(To  Witness) — As  a  specific  for  asthma,  did  you  ever  administer 
arsenic  to  Miss  Barrow — of  course,  I  mean  as  a  medicine? — No,  sir,  no. 

Either  for  asthma  or  anything  else? — No. 

By  Mr.  MUIR — Did  you  make  a  statement  to  the  solicitor  for  the 
defendants,  Mr.  Saint? — Yes.  I  cannot  say  exactly  the  date,  but  he  saw 
me  in  Mr.  Seddon's  house. 

Was  that  after  the  arrest  of  Mr.  Seddon? — Yes. 

Was  that  after  the  arrest  of  Mrs.  Seddon? — Before. 

Did  you  give  him  all  the  particulars  of  the  situations  that  you  had 
been  in? — Yes. 

WILLIAM  SEDDON,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  reside  at 
63  Tollington  Park.  I  am  the  father  of  Frederick  Henry  Seddon.  I  went 
to  live  with  him  at  63  Tollington  Park  about  the  middle  of  February  of 
last  year.  I  slept  in  the  back  room  on  the  second  flat  over  the  basement. 
I  had  nothing  to  do  with  Miss  Barrow  in  the  way  of  waiting  upon  her.  I 
never  prepared  any  food  for  her  at  all,  nor  did  I  ever  give  her  any  food 
or  medicine.  I  was  living  in  the  house  at  the  time  of  her  last  illness,  and 
I  saw  her  on  two  or  three  occasions  then.  I  do  not  exactly  know  why  I 
went  to  see  her.  I  went  on  one  or  two  occasions  previous  to  her  illness, 
and  on  about  three  occasions  after  she  took  ill.  I  remember  on  one 
occasion  she  made  a  will  when  I  was  there.  (Shown  exhibit  31.)  I  signed 
that  at  the  bottom  as  a  witness,  and  Miss  Barrow  signed  that  in  my 
presence.  My  son,  my  daughter-in-law,  and  myself  were  present  when 
she  made  that  will.  The  date  is  llth  September.  On  the  other  occasions 
when  I  went  to  see  her  she  was  in  bed.  I  went  up  to  fetch  some  tools 
that  I  had  left  up  on  the  top  floor,  and  I  saw  the  door  open,  and  I  went  in 
to  ask  her  how  she  was.  She  said  she  was  poorly,  and  I  hoped  she  would 
get  better  soon.  That  was  the  last  time  I  saw  her.  I  remember  Mrs. 
Longley,  a  married  daughter  of  mine,  coming  to  stay  at  the  house  on  llth 
September.  She  stayed  until  after  Miss  Barrow's  death.  I  went  about 
with  Mrs.  Longley  during  the  day  to  different  places  of  amusement.  She 
was  up  w?ith  her  little  girl  just  for  a  holiday.  I  went  to  the  funeral  of 
Miss  Barrow  along  with  my  son  and  my  daughter-in-law.  The  funeral 
started  from  Mr.  Node's  (the  undertaker),  Stroud  Green  Road. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  think  your  son  has  been 
for  twenty  years  in  his  present  employment? — A  matter  of  twenty-one 
years,  I  believe. 

It  is  a  big  insurance  office,  the  London  and  Manchester  Industrial 
Assurance  Company? — Yes. 

He  has  been  superintendent  ten  years? — Yes,  about  that;  it  might  be 
eleven. 

And  is  your  son-in-law,  Mr.  Longley,  in  the  same  office? — Yes. 

You  did  not  see  any  writing  of  Miss  Barrow's  will  itself — any  making 
of  the  will?— No. 

We  know  Miss  Barrow  was  very  deaf? — She  was. 
66 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

William  Seddon 

Did  she  take  the  will  and  read  it  for  herself? — The  -will  was  read  to 
her,  but  she  could  not  thoroughly  understand;  she  asked  for  it,  and  asked 
for  her  glasses  to  read  it  herself,  and  she  read  it. 

Did  she  say  anything? — She  signed  it,  and  she  said,  "Thank  God, 
that  will  do." 

What  did  she  sign  it  with? — With  a  fountain  pen. 

Do  you  remember  on  that  day  having  to  go  to  the  mantelpiece  to  get 
your  pipe? — No,  not  my  pipe.  I  went  to  get  her  glasses  from  the  mantel- 
piece. 

Did  you  see  anything  on  the  mantelpiece  that  you  remember? — Well,  I 
cannot  positively  remember  whether  there  was  anything;  I  did  not  look 
very  minutely. 

On  the  same  day  that  she  signed  the  will  she  seemed  quite  all  right? — 
She  seemed  perfectly  sane  altogether. 

Quite  able  to  understand  and  to  talk  quite  rationally? — Yes,  quite 
able  to  understand  every  word  that  was  said  to  her. 

Did  you  go  into  her  bedroom  again  after  that? — Not  that  day,  not  until 
the  Wednesday,  when  I  went  upstairs  for  a  screwdriver  and  a  hammer  that 
I  had  left  in  the  recess. 

We  have  been  told  that  she  was  very  eccentric.  Did  you  notice  that 
too? — Very  often. 

Before  this  illness  and  before  the  night  she  died  had  you  heard  her 
complain  of  being  ill? — I  understood  she  had  been  under  a  doctor,  and 
Mrs.  Seddon  advised  her  to  go,  and  she  hesitated  on  several  occasions  to 
go,  and  Mrs.  Seddon  had  to  take  her  down  to  a  Dr.  Sworn,  and  he  attended 
her  to  her  death. 

The  doctor  was  coming  pretty  constantly,  as  we  know,  during  the 
last  ten  or  twelve  days? — Yes,  Dr.  Sworn. 

Did  you  notice  the  dreadful  smell  that  there  was  in  the  house? — Yes, 
there  was  a  kind  of  peculiar  smell  at  the  time. 

Do  you  remember  the  weather  then — was  it  very  hot  about  that  time  ? — 
It  was  not  excessively  hot,  but  it  was  very,  very  warm  indeed. 

Did  you  know  about  the  medical  officer  having  sent  a  notice  round 
about  the  flies?  Did  you  see  the  notice? — No,  I  did  not. 

Did  you  notice  whether  there  were  many  flies  about  at  that  time  or 
not? — There  was  plenty  of  flies  knocking  about,  both  upstairs  and  down- 
stairs. 

As  far  as  you  know,  did  Miss  Barrow  ever  complain  of  the  flies? — Not 
that  I  am  aware  of ;  I  could  not  say. 

Just  look  at  that  thing  which  has  been  produced — that  coloured  fly- 
paper. (Handed.)  Have  you  ever  seen  fly-papers  of  that  sort  in  the  house 
at  any  time — anything  like  that? — I  cannot  say;  well,  I  have  seen  some  in 
the  house,  I  think,  about  the  month  of  August. 

Wet  or  dry? — I  cannot  say  exactly  whether  they  were  wet  or  dry. 

You  think  you  saw  some? — I  think  I  saw  some. 

Were  they  in  a  saucer  or  in  anything? — I  could  not  exactly  say. 

Did  you  go  to  Node's  (the  undertaker)  with  Mrs.  Longley  when  Mrs. 
Longley  went? — Yes. 

And  was  his  son  there  at  all? — No;  there  was  me,  Mrs.  Seddon,  and 
my  daughter,  Mrs.  Longley,  went  and  took  a  wreath  on  the  Friday 

67 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

William  Seddon 

afternoon  and  placed  it  upon  the  coffin  lid,  and  we  got  the  woman  in  the 
shop  to  remove  the  coffin  lid,  and  Mrs.  Seddon  stooped  down  and  kissed 
the  corpse. 

Mrs.  EMILY  AMY  LONGLBY,  examined  by  Mr.  TEAVERS  HUMPHRKYS — 
I  am  the  wife  of  James  Longley,  who  is  a  superintendent  in  the  employ- 
ment of  the  London  and  Manchester  Industrial  Assurance  Company.  I 
live  at  Wolverhampton.  I  came  up  to  London  on  llth  September  on  a 
visit  to  my  brother,  the  male  defendant,  at  63  Tollington  Park.  I  was 
accompanied  by  my  daughter,  who  was  then  fourteen  years  old.  We 
stayed  in  the  house  till  Friday,  15th  September.  Every  day  we  went  to 
places  of  amusement.  It  was  always  very  late  when  I  came  back.  My 
daughter  was  always  with  me,  with  the  exception  of  Monday  night,  when 
I  left  her  in  the  house  and  went  to  the  Empire.  On  the  other  occasions 
she  always  accompanied  me.  My  father  went  with  me  every  day. 

Did  either  your  brother  or  your  sister-in-law  go  with  you  on  any  of 
those  occasions  1 — Only  on  the  Monday  evening ;  the  first  night  they  came 
out  they  took  me  to  the  Empire  at  Finsbury  Park.  I  went  out  on  the 
evening  of  the  14th,  the  last  night  I  was  there.  I  went  with  my  daughter, 
Mrs.  Seddon,  and  her  son  Willie.  During  the  time  I  was  in  the  house 
I  prepared  no  food  for  Miss  Barrow.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  her  at  all. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  think  on  14th  September, 
that  is  the  day  after  the  night  of  the  death,  the  blinds  were  all  pulled 
down? — Yes. 

I  think  you  inadvertently  on  the  morning  of  the  15th,  without  a 
thought,  pulled  up  the  blind? — On  the  morning  after  she  had  gone  out 
of  the  house,  on  the  Friday  morning,  yes. 

And  when  Mrs.  Seddon  came  in  she  instantly  pulled  it  down? — Oh,  yes, 
she  was  quite  annoyed  at  my  pulling  it  up. 

Do  you  remember  going  to  the  undertaker's  with  your  father  and 
your  sister-in-law,  Mrs.  Seddon? — Yes,  Friday  afternoon. 

And  you  took  a  wreath  with  you? — Yes,  she  took  the  wreath  with  her. 

An  elderly  lady  was  there  in  the  shop? — The  undertaker's  wife  was 
there. 

And  was  there  a  young  man  there? — No,  none  whatever. 

HARRY  CARL  TAYLOR,  examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  am  the  assistant 
superintendent  for  the  Holloway  district  of  the  London  and  Manchester 
Industriallnsurance  Company.  The  male  prisoner  was  the  superintendent 
for  that  district.  I  used  to  go  to  his  house  every  Thursday  to  make  up 
the  accounts  of  moneys  received  by  the  collectors.  I  went  into  the  front 
room  of  the  basement,  which  was  used  as  an  office,  and  the  collectors  came 
there  also.  On  14th  September  I  arrived  at  the  office  about  12.30,  but 
the  prisoner  was  not  in  then.  I  saw  him  when  he  came  in  at  about 
1.30,  and  I  continued  working  with  him  all  that  day.  During  the  after- 
noon he  complained  that  he  felt  very  tired,  that  he  had  been  up  all  night ; 
I  suggested  that  he  should  lie  down  for  a  couple  of  hours, 
and  he  did  so.  That  would  be  sometime  after  4  o'clock. 
He  came  back  soon  after  5.  The  amount  of  money  received  from  the 
collectors  in  the  industrial  branch  that  day  was  £63  14s.  3d.  The 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Happy  Carl  Taylor 

collectors  used  to  pay  in  once  a  week.  The  money  was  generally  in  the 
form  of  gold  and  silver — about  half  and  half,  I  should  say.  I  saw  gold 
there  on  the  night  of  the  14th.  There  was  some  gold  that  the  collectors 
had  brought  in. 

Any  other  gold? — Yes.  About  a  little  after  9  o'clock,  I  should  think, 
I  was  busy  writing,  and  I  heard  the  chink  of  money. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — A  little  after  9  o'clock  on  the  14th  I  saw 
some  gold.  The  last  collector  was  out  of  the  place  certainly  before 
7  o'clock. 

Examination  continued — As  I  said,  I  heard  the  chink  of  money,  and 
I  just  turned  my  head  where  I  had  a  side  view  of  Mr.  Seddon's  desk,  and 
I  saw  several  piles  of  sovereigns  and  a  good  little  heap  besides.  At  the 
time  I  estimated  that  there  was  over  £200  in  gold.  I  should  say  that 
that  was  not  part  of  the  collectors'  money.  The  collectors'  money  was 
put  in  the  till  which  Mr.  Seddon  kept  in  the  cupboard.  (Shown  exhibit 
28.)  That  is  the  till  I  am  talking  of,  and  I  recognise  it  as  the  one  the 
prisoner  used  to  put  the  collections  into.  On  occasions  I  have  seen  him 
bring  this  till  out  of  the  cupboard,  pull  out  the  drawer  in  his  desk,  and 
put  it  across  it  so  that  he  should  not  have  to  travel  to  and  from  his  desk 
to  the  cupboard.  At  the  time  I  saw  this  quantity  of  gold,  which  I  esti- 
mated at  £200,  the  till  was  in  the  cupboard.  The  prisoner  packed  this 
quantity  of  sovereigns  into  four  bags.  Then  he  took  them  up,  and  he 
held  three  in  his  hand,  and,  taking  up  the  other  one  in  his  hand,  turned 
round  and  faced  myself  and  Mr.  Smith,  my  fellow-assistant,  and  put  the 
one  bag  in  front  of  Mr.  Smith,  and  said,  "  Here,  Smith,  here's  your 
wages."  He  picked  it  up  again,  and  then  he  put  the  four  bags  into 
the  safe,  which  was  alongside  the  fireplace,  about  two  steps  from  the 
cupboard  where  the  till  was.  (Shown  exhibit  27.)  That  plan  shows 
the  cupboard  where  the  cash  till  was  kept.  The  chair  marked  with  the 
letter  "  S "  is  where  Mr.  Seddon  sat,  the  chair  marked  "  H.C.T."  is 
where  I  sat,  and  the  chair  marked  "  J.C.A.S."  is  where  Mr.  Smith  sat. 
The  safe  is  situated  behind  the  chair  where  Mr.  Seddon  sat.  The  collectors 
came  in  at  the  door  in  front  of  Mr.  Seddon's  desk,  and  put  their  money 
in  front  of  him  when  they  came  in.  They  would  come  in  from  Tollington 
Park,  down  the  area  steps  into  the  passage,  and  then  into  that  door. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — How  long  had  you  known  Mr. 
Seddon — a  good  many  years? — I  have  only  known  him  personally  since 
last  April.  I  have  been  in  the  employ  of  the  company  nearly  six  years. 

You  know  he  has  been  there  nearly  twenty  years? — That  is  quite  so. 

And  had  you  come  often  on  these  Thursdays  to  make  up  accounts  1 — 
Since  April. 

You  were  there,  I  understand,  from  about  half -past  twelve  till  a  little 
past  one  when  you  first  saw  Mr.  Seddon? — That  is  so. 

Then  from  1  to  4  you  worked  with  Mr.  Seddon? — That  is  so. 

And  at  4  o'clock  Mr.  Seddon  went  away  and  did  not  come  back  again 
until  5.  Was  any  more  money  brought  in  by  the  collectors  while  Mr. 
Seddon  was  away? — No. 

It  was  all  in  before  ? — No,  it  was  not  all  in ;  there  was  some  left 
behind,  but  during  the  time  he  was  away  no  collectors  came  in,  as  far 
as  I  remember. 

69 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Harry  Carl  Taylor 

Did  you  stay  right  away  from  5  to  9? — Yes,  we  were  there  till  mid- 
night. 

But  did  you  not  go  out  at  all  from  5  to  9  ? — No. 

The  till  we  have  seen  is  kept  in  this  cupboard  facing  the  window? — Yes. 

The  safe,  which  we  see  upon  the  plan  is  a  largish  safe,  is  there  (indi- 
cating on  the  plan)? — Yes. 

About  9  o'clock  did  Mr.  Seddon  get  up,  fetch  the  till  from  the  cup- 
board, put  it  on  this  desk,  and  proceed  to  count  the  contents? — No. 

You  are  quite  sure  of  that? — I  am  perfectly  certain. 

The  first  thing  that  attracted  your  attention  to  the  money  was  the 
chink? — It  was  the  chink. 

And  when  you  looked  round  did  you  find  money  on  the  desk? — On 
the  desk. 

That  was  the  chink  you  heard? — That  was  the  chink  I  heard. 

Are  you  prepared  really  to  say  that  some  of  it — not  all  of  it — was  not 
money  that  had  been  taken  from  the  till? — I  am  quite  prepared  to  say  it 
was  not  the  money  from  the  till.  I  feel  positive  about  it. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  see  the  collection  sheet  for  that  week  shows 
£80? — Yes,  but  then  you  had  to  deduct  the  men's  commission,  first  of  all, 
and  then  you  had  to  deduct  also  the  amount  of  salaries  and  bonuses  paid  to 
the  men  on  new  business,  so  the  amount  really  was  about  £50  that  he 
had  in  the  till. 

I  am  not  suggesting  that  you  did  not  see  gold — nothing  of  the  sort — 
but  I  suggest  to  you  that  you  are  wrong  in  the  amount.  You  say  you 
estimated  it  at  £200?— £200. 

I  suggest  to  you  it  was  something  at  or  about  £100? — No. 

You  are  quite  positive? — I  quite  agree  with  you  that  I  may  be  wrong 
as  to  the  amount,  because  since  I  have  made  an  experiment  with  the  same 
kind  of  bags,  and  those  four  bags  contained,  according  to  my  experiment, 
over  £400. 

I  see.  Then  you  think  he  had  £400  now? — Judging  by  the  size  of 
the  bags  I  saw  in  his  hands. 

£400,  and  one  of  the  bags  he  holds  up  to  Smith  and  says,  "  Here  is 
your  salary  "  ? — Yes. 

He  said  that  as  a  joke? — As  a  joke. 

He  was  in  a  very  good  temper? — I  never  saw  him  the  same  as  he 
was  on  that  day. 

Smith  said,  "  Don't  say  that,  I  only  wish  it  was  "? — Yes,  he  said,  "  I 
wish  it  was  true,  Mr.  Seddon." 

You  know  the  suggestion  that  is  now  made — that  this  £200  that  you 
then  said,  or  the  £400  that  you  say  now,  is  money  that  this  man  had 
stolen  from  a  dead  woman  he  had  murdered? — Yes. 

And  he  is  joking  while  the  dead  body  is  lying  in  the  house,  according 
to  your  story? — Well,  he  did  hand  the  money  to  Mr.  Smith. 

When  you  gave  your  evidence,  which  was  some  months  after  that, 
you  had  been  told  that  there  was  an  amount  of  money  missing,  had  you 
not? — That  is  so ;  I  saw  it  in  the  papers. 

Then,  of  course,  your  mind  travelled  back  to  this  night,  and  you  were 
sure.       Of  course,  he  was  handling  gold,  but  I  suggest  to  you  that  it  was 
£100  in  gold,  and  not  £200?— No. 
70 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Happy  Carl  Taylor 

Now  you  say  you  are  wrong  in  saying  £200,  and  say  that  it  was 
£400?— Yes. 

Mr.  Smith  must  have  been  wrong,  too? — I  said  £200,  but  I  thought 
it  was  more  than  that  that  very  night. 

Curiously  enough,  Mr.  Smith,  who  was  with  you,  said  what  he  saw  was 
£100  and  some  more  in  the  bags? — That  is  so,  I  believe. 

Has  he  also  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  now  £400  ? — I  could  not 
say. 

You  have  not  talked  it  over  with  Mr.  Smith? — Well,  we  tried  the 
experiment  together,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Seddon  was  in  the  habit,  and  had  been  for 
years,  of  keeping  a  large  sum  of  money  in  the  house? — No,  I  never  did. 

Did  you  know  he  had  a  second  safe  up  in  the  bedroom? — I  did  not 
know  at  that  time. 

You  know  now? — I  know  now. 

That  was  a  largish  safe  downstairs? — Yes,  it  was. 

And  the  custom  was  that  all  the  money  was  mixed  together  and  then 
paid  into  his  account,  and  then  he  would  draw  a  cheque  for  the  insurance 
office  money  out  of  the  bank? — I  believe  it  was  so,  but  I  am  not  quite 
certain  about  it. 

Had  there  been  a  fuss  about  a  little  money  that  had  been  missing, 
had  Mr.  Seddon  been  making  a  fuss  about  some  moneys  short  in  collections? 
— He  did  say  in  the  week  that  he  was  £2  out  in  his  cash. 

Did  Mr.  Seddon  also  say  that  the  business  was  not  as  good  as  it  used 
to  be,  and  they  would  have  to  decrease  the  staff? — No,  I  do  not  think  so. 
He  told  me  that  he  expected  that  he  should  have  to  do  with  one  assistant 
superintendent,  and  if  that  was  so  he  would  have  to  decrease  the  staff  by 
getting  rid  of  some  of  the  men. 

By  getting  rid  of  you? — No. 

It  does  not  follow  that  yours  would  be  the  vacancy? — No,  it  was  not 
in  his  power  to  dismiss  me. 

No,  but  did  he  not  tell  you  that  he  would  have  to  report,  and  they 
would  have  to  do  with  one  officer  less? — No,  he  did  not  tell  me  he  would 
have  to  report  it. 

That  he  would  have  to  reduce  the  staff? — He  told  me  he  would  have 
to  report  it,  and  apply  for  an  exchange. 

Let  us  just  get  this  once  more.  This  took  place  on  14th  September? 
—Yes. 

You  did  not  think  anything  of  it  at  the  time — you  made  no  report 
to  anybody? — No,  but  I  had  my  thoughts  about  it. 

But  when  you  saw  in  the  papers  the  account  of  the  inquest  and  the 
statement  that  £200  was  missing  then  your  mind  travelled  back  to  this 
night? — No. 

That  is  what  I  want  to  know  ? — I  made  up  my  mind  that  the  money 
was  over  £200  that  very  night. 

I  am  not  dealing  with  that;  I  am  dealing  with  the  question  of  your 
mind  going  back  to  the  occasion.  The  next  thing  that  brought  your 
mind  back  to  it  was  what  you  saw  in  the  paper  about  the  inquest? — Yes, 
that  would  be  so. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Harry  Carl  Taylor 


Re-examined  by  Mr.  MUIE — You  said  you  had  never  seen.  Mr.  Seddon 
like  that  on  any  other  day  before  1 — No. 

What   did   you   mean    by   that — like   what? — He    looked    very   tired, 
•weary,  and  haggard.       He  was  in  a  state  that  I  had  not  seen  him  in  before. 

Did  he  tell  you  he  had  been  up  all  night  ? — He  told  me  he  had  been 
up  all  night. 

The  Court  adjourned. 


Third  Day— Wednesday,  6th   March,  1912. 

The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

JOHN  CHARLES  ARTHUR  SMITH,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVBRS  HUMPHREYS — 
I  am  assistant  superintendent  of  the  Holloway  district  of  the  London  and 
Manchester  Industrial  Insurance  Company.  On  Thursday,  14th  September 
last,  I  went  to  63  Tollington  Park  in  the  ordinary  course  of  my  duties.  I 
got  there  about  12.45,  in  the  middle  of  the  day,  and  I  stayed  there  until 
12  o'clock  midnight. 

In  the  course  of  the  evening  did  you  notice  anything  particular  on  the 
desk  of  the  male  prisoner? — I  did.  About  8.30,  as  far  as  I  can  remember, 
I  noticed  a  large  amount  of  gold,  loose  sovereigns  and  half-sovereigns. 
Two  bags  had  already  been  filled  when  I  noticed  this. 

Did  you  estimate  at  all  how  much  gold  you  saw  loose  on  the  table  ? — 
I  did  at  that  time — about  £100,  because  I  have  experimented  since. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Oh,  don't  do  that.  You  must  answer  the 
question,  sir.  These  people  are  being  tried  on  a  capital  charge.  Any 
observation  made  by  any  witness  over  and  above  a  clear  and  plain 
answer  to  the  question  put  might  be  most  disastrous.  I  might  have  to 
begin  the  whole  thing  again.  You  know  perfectly  well  you  must  not 
make  observations.  Now,  go  on. 

Examination  continued — I  estimated  it  at  about  £100.  1  did  not  see 
any  silver  or  copper  on  the  table.  Mr.  Seddon  was  placing  the  gold  into 
bags  when  I  saw  it.  Two  bags  were  already  filled,  and  I  saw  the  prisoner 
fill  other  two.  He  placed  the  four  bags  in  his  safe.  He  handed  one 
of  the  bags  to  me  on  my  desk,  and  said,  "  Here's  your  wages."  He  said 
that  jokingly.  I  turned  round  and  smiled,  and  said,  "  I  wish  you  meant 
it,  Mr.  Seddon."  The  safe  in  which  I  saw  him  put  the  bags  was  not 
the  place  in  which  he  usually  put  the  money  which  he  received  from  the 
collectors.  The  money  he  received  from  the  collectors  he  usually  put 
in  a  till. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  had  seen  the  collectors'  money  being 
dealt  with  for  very  near  twelve  months,  and  the  practice  was  to  place  the 
money  in  tills  provided  for  that  purpose.  This  accounting  took  place 
every  week  during  the  twelve  months  that  I  was  there. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.    MARSHALL   HALL — When  did  you  first   come 
into  connection  with  the  police  with  a  view  of  giving  evidence?-    Some 
time  in  December? — Yes. 
72 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

John  Charles  Arthur  Smith 

You  have  been  at  Mr.  Seddon's  house  pretty  frequently  for  the  past 
twelve  months? — Yes. 

You  are  in  the  same  employ? — Yes. 

You  are  almost  next  in  rank  to  him,  are  you  not? — No,  Mr.  Taylor 
is  the  senior  assistant. 

Now,  I  think  you  said  in  the  evidence  that  you  have  given  that  you 
saw  about  £100  worth  of  gold  loose,  and  that  two  bags  were  already 
filled  when  you  noticed  that? — Yes. 

You  drew  the  conclusion  that  the  other  two  bags  also  contained  gold? 
—I  did. 

You  do  not  suggest,  and  you  have  never  suggested,  have  you,  that 
you  saw  the  other  two  bags  actually  filled  with  gold? — No. 

They  were  the  ordinary  £5  silver  bags? — The  ordinary  light  brown 
bags  which  the  bank  will  supply  for  the  purpose  of  gold. 

Five  shillings  in  copper,  £5  in  silver,  or  £100  in  gold? — I  should  say 
they  were  £100  in  gold  bags,  a  really  large  size. 

Is  there  any  difference  in  size  between  the  £100  in  gold  bag  and  the 
£5  in  silver  bag? — Not  much,  I  think. 

Do  you  not  know  that  the  bags  to  hold  £5  silver  and  the  bags  to  hold 
£100  in  gold  are  the  same  size? — Yes,  they  are. 

Do  you  know  Maggie  Seddon? — Yes,  I  do. 

Earlier  in  the  afternoon  did  you  see  Maggie  Seddon  in  the  street 
and  pat  her  on  the  back  ? — I  did  not. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  earlier  in  the  afternoon  you  had  called  Maggie 
Seddon  who  was  outside  the  house,  and  you  just  patted  her  on  the  shoulder 
and  said,  "  How  are  you  "? — I  did  not. 

You  never  saw  Maggie  Seddon  that  afternoon  at  all? — I  may  have 
seen  her  when  she  came  to  the  office  to  see  her  father  about  something 
in  the  office,  but  not  outside. 

Your  evidence  before  the  magistrate  was,  "  I  make  a  rough  estimate 
of  the  money  I  saw  as  £100  "1 — On  the  table. 

After  the  inquest  did  you  go  to  the  house  and  see  Seddon? — I  went 
there  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business. 

Did  you  say  to  Mr.  Seddon,  "  I  remember  seeing  £100  in  gold  on  the 
night  that  I  came  in  to  check  the  receipts  "? — No,  certainly  not. 

Did  you  offer  to  come  and  give  evidence  at  the  inquest? — No. 

Nothing  of  the  kind  occurred? — Nothing  of  the  kind  occurred. 

Did  you  tell  them  that  you  remembered  the  letter  being  posted? — I 
told  them  that  I  thought — I  had  an  idea  of  a  certain  letter  being  posted. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — What  was  the  idea? — That  he  had  written  a 
letter  to  the  relations. 

Was  any  particular  letter  spoken  of? — It  would  want  a  slight  explana- 
tion, my  lord. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  want  you  to  tell  us  what  this 
statement  was  and  how  you  came  to  make  it,  and  what  you  were  referring 
to  when  you  did  make  it.  Let  us  understand  what  it  means? — On  the 
night  after  Miss  Barrow's  death,  which  would  be  the  Friday,  Mr.  Taylor 
and  I  went  to  the  office  as  usual,  and  Mr.  Seddon  turned  round  to  me  and 
said,  "  Fancy,  the  relations  have  not  been  near,  and  the  funeral  is 
to-morrow."  Then  on  27th  November  Mr.  Seddon  sent  me  a  post  card  to 

73 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

John  Charles  Arthur  Smith 

call  upon  him.  When  I  arrived  he  was  very  busy  with  legal  documents, 
and  he  had  been  showing  me  several  of  these  referring  to  this  case,  and  in 
the  midst  of  looking  at  these  papers  I  was  rather  taken  off  my  guard.  He 
said  to  me,  "  Oh,  Smith,  you  remember  me  writing  a  letter  to  the 
relations."  Well,  my  mind  went  back  to  the  day 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Keep  your  witness  in  hand. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Do  not  tell  us  about  your  mind  going 
back.  Tell  us  what  you  said? — Well,  I  remember  him  saying  to  me  in 
the  office,  "  Fancy,  the  relations  have  not  been  near,  and  the  funeral  is 
to-morrow,"  and  I  felt  that  he  had  written  this  letter.  I  thought  he 
had  written  this  letter.  I  said  I  had  a  recollection  of  the  letter  being 
written. 

Had  you  seen  him  writing  a  letter  to  the  relations? — I  had  not. 
Mr.  Seddon  was  always  writing  letters  during  the  day. 

Had  you  seen  him  writing  letters  at  all  during  that  day? — Yes. 

In  the  office  in  the  basement? — Yes. 

Did  you  know  to  whom  the  letters  were  being  written? — I  do  not. 

Did  he  say  to  you  anything  at  the  time  he  was  writing  these  letters  ? — 
He  did  not. 

About  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  addressed  or  anything  of  that 
kind?— No. 

Will  you  tell  us  how  you  came  to  say  that  you  thought  you  recollected, 
or  some  such  expression  of  that  kind? — From  the  fact  that  he  told  me, 
or  said  at  the  office,  as  I  previously  mentioned,  "  Fancy,  the  relations  have 
not  been  near,  and  the  funeral  is  to-morrow."  I  thought  perhaps  he 
had  written  it  from  the  fact  of  him  saying  that. 

ALFRED  HARTWELL,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  one 
of  the  directors  of  the  London  and  Manchester  Industrial  Assurance  Com- 
pany. The  male  prisoner  has  been  employed  by  that  company  since  1891. 
Since  1901  he  has  been  superintendent  of  collectors  and  canvassers  for  the 
North  London  district.  Up  to  March,  1911,  his  salary  was  £5  3s.  a  week, 
and  from  25th  March  it  was  £5  6s.  a  week.  In  addition  to  that  salary, 
he  was  entitled  to  commission  on  the  ordinary  branch  of  the  business. 
The  majority  of  the  business  done  by  my  company  is  industrial  insurance, 
but  the  prisoner  was  not  entitled  to  commission  on  that.  During  the  year 
ending  March,  1911,  the  average  sum  paid  to  him  for  salary  and  com- 
mission was  £5  16s.,  and  from  March,  1911,  to  November,  1911,  his 
earnings  were  £5  15s.  lOd.  a  week,  although  his  salary  had  been  increased 
a  little.  As  the  superintendent  of  that  district,  it  was  his  duty  to  receive 
money  every  Thursday  from  the  various  collectors.  He  would  do  that 
at  his  own  house,  where  he  had  an  office  in  the  basement.  He  would  receive 
the  total  amount  collected  by  the  collectors,  less  their  commission — they 
would  deduct  the  commission  before  they  would  pay  him  over  the  cash — 
and  he  would  then  pay  to  the  collectors  any  salaries  and  procuration  fees 
for  new  business.  The  balance  would  remain  for  him  to  pay  into  his  own 
bank  account.  He  used  his  own  banking  account  for  the  purpose  of  the 
company's  money  as  well  as  his  own.  It  would  be  his  duty  to  draw  a 
cheque  payable  to  the  name  of  Mr.  Dawes,  our  managing  director,  for  the 
amount  due  to  the  company,  that  is  to  say,  for  the  amount  left  to  him 
74 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Alfred  Hartwell 

less  his  own  salary  and  any  commission  due,  which  he  would  deduct.  He 
had  a  small  allowance  of  8s.  9d.  a  week  for  stamps  and  office  rent,  and  that 
he  would  be  entitled  to  deduct  from  the  amount  he  paid  in  and  from  the 
amount  he  drew  the  cheque  for  to  Mr.  Dawes.  I  find  that  the  total  amount 
of  the  collections  before  the  commission  was  deducted  for  the  week  ending 
14th  September  was  £80  4s.  7Jd.  Eighteen  shillings  of  that  was  collected, 
but  was  owing  by  the  discrepancies  on  the  part  of  previous  agents,  so  that 
the  total  amount  of  cash  paid  by  the  collectors  would  be  £79  6s.  7|d. 
Before  that  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  prisoner  the  collectors  would  deduct 
commission  due  to  them,  amounting  to  £15  12s.  3£d.  Therefore  the 
prisoner  would  actually  have  in  his  possession  at  one  time  £63  14s.  4d. 
for  the  industrial  branch  and  £2  17s.  7d.  for  the  ordinary  that  week. 
£66  lls.  lid.  would  go  into  the  bank.  He  would  pay  back  to  the 
collectors  £4  12s.  6d.,  the  new  business  fees.  The  total  of  the  salaries 
on  that  occasion  was  £9  16s.  That  included  his  own  salary  of  £5  6s.,  so 
that  £4  10s.  is  the  amount  which  he  would  pay  back  to  the  collectors  for 
their  salaries,  leaving  £57  9s.  5d.,  which  he  would  pay  into  the  bank  if  he 
chose.  Out  of  that  there  was  due  to  the  company  £48  17s.  Id.  for  the 
industrial  and  £2  17s.  7d.  for  the  ordinary.  It  was  his  duty  to  draw 
separate  cheques  for  those  amounts  to  Mr.  Dawes,  and  he  did  so  on  that 
day.  The  discharging  of  either  Mr.  Smith  or  Mr.  Taylor  would  not  be  in 
the  hands  of  the  prisoner  at  all.  He  would  recommend  the  directors 
probably,  or  through  his  superintendent,  to  get  rid  of  a  certain  man,  but 
we  would  inquire  into  it  first. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Promotion  in  our  office  is 
like  promotion  in  any  other  office ;  when  there  is  room  on  the  top  somebody 
comes  up  from  the  bottom.  The  prisoner  was  for  about  twenty-one  years 
in  the  employment  of  my  company.  He  was  allowed  to  pay  in  money 
he  received  into  his  own  bank,  and  then  he  would  draw  a  cheque  for  the 
proportion  due  to  the  company  in  favour  of  Mr.  Dawes,  our  managing 
director. 

And  there  was  no  question  about  irregularities.  It  was  a  perfectly 
regular  thing  for  him  to  pay  your  money  into  his  bank? — Yes. 

There  would  be  no  objection  to  the  wife  of  one  of  your  men  carrying 
on  a  separate  business  if  she  liked,  nothing  to  do  with  insurance? — Yes,  as 
long  as  he  did  not  interfere  with  it.  But  we  do  not  like  them  doing  that, 
because  we  feel  that  part  of  their  time  is  devoted  to  that.  I  heard  quite 
accidentally  from  Mr.  Seddon  about  three  or  four  years  ago  that  his  wife 
was  carrying  on  a  business. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  was  a  wardrobe  dealer's 
business.  I  made  particular  inquiries,  because  we  did  not  want  our 
business  neglected  for  another  business. 

If  his  wife  carried  on  a  wardrobe  business,  would  that  have  anything 
to  do  with  your  business? — Well,  I  mean  that  we  did  not  want  him  to 
interfere. 

Mrs.  E.  A.  LONGLEY,  recalled,  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — My  husband 
wrote  and  asked  Mr.  Seddon  if  he  would  put  us  up  for  a  day  or  two  before 
we  came.  Mr.  Seddon  wrote  back  that  the  old  lady  in  the  house  was  ill, 
but  if  we  liked  to  take  pot-luck  we  might  come.  I  noticed  a  very  bad 

75 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mrs.  E.  A.  Longley 

smell  in  the  house.  My  sister-in-law  had  a  baby  about  twelve  months  old 
in  the  house.  I  saw  Ernie  Grant  once  in  bed  and  once  on  the  morning 
•when  he  was  sent  to  Southend.  He  looks  very  delicate. 

Did  you  call  attention  to  the  fact  as  to  whether  it  was  healthy  or  not 
for  Ernie  Grant  to  sleep  in  the  same  room  as  Miss  Barrow? — Yes.  He 
was  in  bed  with  Miss  Barrow  when  I  saw  him,  and  I  thought  it  was  not 
healthy  for  the  boy,  nor  was  it  decent  for  him  to  be  there. 

ERNEST  VICTOR  ROWLAND,  recalled,  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I 
produce  exhibit  35,  a  certified  extract  from  the  books  of  my  bank,  the 
London  and  Provincial  Bank,  Finsbury  Park  branch,  showing  the  payments 
in  and  out  during  the  time  which  includes  the  month  of  September,  1911. 
It  shows  in  what  form  the  payments  in  to  the  account  were  made.  On 
15th  September,  1911,  there  was  a  payment  in  to  the  account  of  £81  7s.  6d. 
in  coin  and  in  drafts  £6  17s.  2d.  On  the  same  day  there  was  a  further 
payment  in  of  £7  16s.  in  cash,  making  a  total  of  £96  Os.  8d.  for  that 
day.  On  16th  September  the  account  is  debited  with  a  cheque  drawn  to 
the  order  of  Mr.  Dawes  of  £48  17s.  Id.  On  the  19th  there  is  another  cheque 
drawn  to  the  same  person  to  the  amount  of  £2  17s.  7d. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — There  was  a  payment  m  on 
15th  September  of  £88  4s.  8d.  and  £7  16s.  £88  4s.  8d.  was  made  up  of 
£81  7s.  6d.  in  cash  and  £6  17s.  2d.  in  drafts.  £7  16s.  was  paid  in  in 
coin.  Out  of  the  £81  7s.  6d.  in  cash  there  was  £15  17s.  6d.  in  silver. 

£15  17s.  6d.  in  silver  would  be  about  three  ordinary  bags  full  of 
silver? — Just  over  three  bags.  The  drafts  were  cheques  and  postal  orders. 
There  is  a  weekly  sum  paid  in  of  somewhere  approaching  £7  or  £7  10s.,  or 
something  of  that  sort  pretty  regularly.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  was 
the  proceeds  of  rent.  It  is  all  cash. 

Re-examined — Sometimes  this  sum  is  £6 — it  varies  about  £7. 

CHARLES  JAMES  CRASFIELD,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — 
I  am  an  assistant  secretary  to  the  National  Freehold  Land  and  Building 
Society,  25  Moorgate  Street.  My  society  advanced  to  the  male  prisoner 
on  27th  November,  1909.  a  sum  of  £220  on  a  mortgage  of  the  lease  of  his 
house,  63  Tollington  Park.  I  received  the  letter,  which  is  exhibit  15, 
dated  19th  September  : — "  Dear  sir, — Please  let  me  know  the  exact  amount 
required  to  date  to  pay  off  the  mortgage  on  above  premises,  and  oblige, 
per  return."  I  replied  the  next  day.  The  amount  of  the  mortgage  has 
not  yet  been  paid  off.  On  18th  September,  1911,  I  received  from  the 
prisoner  an  application  (exhibit  16)  for  three  completed  shares  in  my 
society.  The  value  of  the  three  shares  as  there  stated  is  £90,  and  there 
is  an  entrance  fee  of  3s.  On  that  date  the  male  prisoner  purchased  those 
shares  and  paid  me  £90  3s.  in  cash.  He  was  given  the  pass  book,  exhibit 
17,  which  shows  that  £90  3s.  was  paid  in  coin. 

CLARA  MAY  COOPER,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I  am  a 
counter  clerk  and  telegraphist  at  the  Finsbury  Park  Branch  Post  Office, 
290  Seven  Sisters  Road.  (Shown  exhibit  37.)  There  is  a  post  office  savings 
bank  book  in  the  name  of  F.  H.  Seddon,  63  Tollington  Park.  On  15th 
September,  1911,  a  sum  of  £30  was  paid  into  that  account.  I  do  not 
76 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Clara  May  Cooper 

remember  how  it  was  paid  in  or  who  paid  it  in,  but  I  am  able  to  say 
that  at  least  £25  of  that  sum  must  have  been  in  gold. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — How  can  this  be  evidence  against  either  of  these 
prisoners — a  payment  in  by  somebody  whom  this  witness  cannot  recognise  1 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — It  is  only  as  a  fact.  By  itself  it  is  not 
evidence  against  them.  Of  course,  it  will  occur  to  you  at  once  in  the 
absence  of  any  evidence  identifying  the  person  paying  it  in,  it  is  not 
evidence  against  him. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — According  to  this  witness,  on  that  day  £30 
was  paid  in  to  the  credit  of  his  account.  At  the  present  moment  we  are 
proceeding  to  ask  her  how  that  money  was  paid  in.  She  is  not  able 
to  identify  the  person  paying  it  in,  and  I  quite  assent  to  what  your  lord- 
ship says  upon  that.  But  it  would  be  evidence  against  the  prisoner  that 
money  is  paid  in  to  his  account;  assuming  she  says  £25  of  it  is  gold, 
£25  in  gold  was  paid  into  his  account  on  that  date  to  his  credit. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  evidence  that  on  that  day  that  was 
done,  and  his  account  had  the  benefit  of  that  amount.  Strictly  speaking, 
if  this  lady  cannot  tell  us  who  paid  it  in  or  how  it  was  paid  in,  but  only 
that  somebody  paid  into  this  account  that  sum  of  money,  it  is  a  fact  for 
the  consideration  of  the  jury.  But  taken  by  itself  it  is  not  evidence  of 
guilt  in  this  case. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — If  I  may  say  so,  I  quite  assent;  by  itself 
it  is  not  evidence  of  guilt. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  must  take  a  formal  objection  in  a  case  of  this 
kind.  There  being  no  identification  of  the  person  who  paid  this  money 
in,  the  details  of  the  payment  which  was  made  are  not  evidence  in  this 
case,  even  as  evidence  of  a  fact.  Before  I  had  noticed  it  I  had  allowed 
the  answer  to  be  given,  that  on  that  day  a  credit  of  £30  was  passed  to  the 
credit  of  F.  H.  Seddon,  who  I  do  not  for  a  moment  dispute  is  the  prisoner. 
Beyond  that,  I  submit  this  witness  cannot  go. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  shall  tell  the  jury  this — I  will  repeat  it  once 
more  so  that  there  will  be  no  mistake — that  with  regard  to  this  payment  in, 
if  it  were  the  only  question  in  the  case  I  should  rule  that  it  was  no  evidence 
against  him  of  guilt  in  this  case,  but  I  cannot  reject  as  a  fact  that  on  15th 
September,  which  is  an  important  date,  the  day  after  the  death  of  this 
lady,  his  banking  account  was  increased  by  £30. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  do  not  object  to  that,  but  what  I  do  object 
to  now  is  any  evidence  being  given  as  to  the  form  in  which  that  £30 
was  paid  in. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  submit  we  are  entitled  to  get  as  evidence 
how  that  money  came  into  his  account. 

Examination  contimied — On  that  day,  1 5th  September,  I  went  on  duty 
at  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  I  was  handed  £10  in  bank  notes  by  the 
colleague  whom  I  relieved.  When  I  went  off  duty  at  8  o'clock  that  night 
I  had  £15  in  bank  notes.  Between  2  o'clock  and  8  o'clock  I  did  not 
receive  more  than  £5  in  bank  notes  from  anybody.  Between  2  o'clock  and 
8  o'clock  on  that  day  this  sum  of  £30  was  paid  in  to  that  account  by 
somebody. 

That  being  so,  are  you  able  to  say  how  much  of  that  £30  could  have 

77 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Clara  May  Cooper 

been  in  a  form  other  than  coin  1 — £5  might  possibly  have  been  by  the  bank 
note  which  I  received  that  afternoon. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — The  money  that  is  paid  in 
is  not  kept  distinct  from  the  payments  out ;  we  pay  out  of  the  same  till 
as  we  pay  in  to. 

Therefore  do  you  know  how  much  you  paid  out  that  afternoon? — Yes. 
I  am  quite  sure  that  I  did  not  pay  out  any  notes  at  all  that  afternoon. 
As  far  as  I  know,  the  whole  £30  may  have  been  paid  in  in  gold.  I  do 
not  remember  it  being  paid ;  I  do  not  know  who  paid  it  in  or  how  it  was 
paid  in.  Looking  at  the  savings  bank  book  I  find  that  £43  17s.  9d.  was 
paid  out  of  that  account  on  27th  November,  1911.  That  left  exactly  £20 
in  the  account. 

THOMAS  WRIGHT,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a 
jeweller,  carrying  on  business  at  400  and  402  Holloway  Road.  I  know 
the  male  prisoner  as  a  customer.  I  remember  his  coming  to  my  shop  on 
15th  September,  1911,  and  bringing  with  him  a  small  single  stone  diamond 
ring,  exhibit  121.  He  said  that  he  wanted  it  made  very  much  larger. 
When  it  was  brought  to  me  it  was  a  gentleman's  single  stone  little  finger 
ring,  but  it  might  be  used  by  a  lady.  The  ring  was  left  with  me.  He 
returned  later  that  same  day,  bringing  with  him  a  gold  watch,  exhibit  21. 
He  said  he  wanted  the  name  "  E.  J.  Barrow,  1860,"  erased  from  the 
inside.  That  name  was  engraved  right  inside  on  the  back  plate  which 
I  indicate.  It  is  not  possible  to  get  at  that  plate  without  opening  the 
works  of  the  watch.  He  also  wished  a  gold  dial  to  be  put  in  in  place 
of  the  old  enamel  one,  which  was  very  much  cracked.  He  left  the  watch 
with  me,  and  I  did  the  two  commissions  which  he  gave  me.  The  female 
prisoner  was  with  him  when  he  brought  the  watch.  On  20th  September 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  came  together,  and  I  handed  back  the  ring  to  him. 
It  is  now  in  the  enlarged  form  in  which  I  made  it  according  to  his  order. 
I  delivered  the  watch  on  17th  November.  It  took  me  a  long  time  to  get 
the  gold  dial.  Mr.  Seddon  called  several  times  for  the  watch  between 
15th  September  and  17th  November.  I  had  his  address;  I  had  known 
him  for  quite  a  year.  He  paid  for  the  ring  and  the  watch. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  have  known  the  male 
prisoner  as  a  customer.  I  believe  on  a  previous  occasion  he  had  had 
the  diamond  ring  altered.  I  believe  he  took  this  particular  diamond 
ring  off  his  little  finger,  and  I  think  he  said  he  wanted  it  altered  to  fit  his 
middle  finger.  There  is  no  mystery  about  my  having  taken  a  couple  of 
months  to  put  the  gold  dial  on  to  the  watch,  as  it  is  a  very  difficult  thing 
to  do.  At  the  same  time  that  he  brought  the  watch  he  did  not  bring  a 
large  locket  of  Mrs.  Seddon's  to  have  a  stone  put  in.  (Shown  exhibit  21.) 
The  enlarging  of  that  diamond  ring  would  not  in  any  way  destroy  its 
identity.  It  is  merely  a  question  of  hammering  out  the  gold.  The 
stone  weighs  under  two  grains,  it  is  slightly  yellow,  and  it  might  be 
worth  £4  or  £5. 

Re-examined — I  would  give  £4  for  it — that  is  about  its  value. 

WILLIAM    NODES,    examined    by   the    ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I   carry    on 
business  as  an  undertaker  at  201   Holloway  Road,   and  I  have  a  branch 
78 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


William  Nodes 


office  at  78  Stroud  Green  Road.  I  have  known  the  male  prisoner  since 
1901.  In  April,  1902,  I  did  a  small  funeral  business  for  him.  I  used 
to  see  him  occasionally.  I  remember  him  calling  upon  me  at  78  Stroud 
Green  Road  about  11.30  a.m.  on  14th  September  of  last  year.  He  said 
that  a  death  had  occurred  in  his  house,  and  he  wanted  to  make  arrange- 
ments for  the  funeral,  which  must  be  an  inexpensive  one.  He  did  not 
describe  the  person  who  had  died;  he  merely  said  an  "  old  lady"  or  an 
"  old  girl,"  I  do  not  remember  which  it  was,  had  died  in  his  house,  and 
that  he  wished  to  make  arrangements  for  the  funeral.  He  said  that  it 
must  be  an  inexpensive  funeral  from  the  fact  that  he  had  found  £4  10s. 
in  the  room,  and  that  would  have  to  defray  the  funeral  expenses,  and  that 
there  were  also  certain  fees  due  to  the  doctor.  I  suggested  an  inclusive 
funeral  of  £4,  but  he  said  that  10s.  would  not  cover  the  doctor's  expenses, 
and  then  I  told  him  I  would  do  the  funeral  for  him  for  £3  7s.  6d.,  an 
inclusive  charge,  to  enable  him  to  cover  all  expenses,  including  the  doctor 
and  that  sort  of  thing.  I  explained  to  him  what  kind  of  funeral  it  would 
be  for  the  price ;  it  was  a  £4  funeral  really,  and  it  would  mean  a  coffin, 
polished  and  ornamented  with  handles  and  inside  lining,  a  composite 
carriage,  the  necessary  bearers,  and  the  fees  at  Islington  Cemetery, 
Finchley,  and  it  included  the  interment  in  the  grave  at  Finchley.  I  do  not 
know  that  I  specified  what  kind  of  grave  she  would  be  buried  in,  but 
it  would  mean  interment  in  a  public  grave,  a  grave  dug  by  the  cemetery 
people,  who  allow  interments  in  it  at  a  certain  price,  which  includes  the 
use  of  the  clergyman.  By  a  "  public  grave  "  I  mean  a  grave  which  is 
not  the  particular  property  of  any  individual ;  it  is  used  for  more  than 
one  person.  I  think  it  was  distinctly  understood  by  Mr.  Seddon  that 
it  would  not  be  a  private  grave. 

When  you  say  it  was  distinctly  understood,  did  you  talk  about  it  at 
all? — No,  not  emphasising  the  fact  of  its  being  a  public  grave.  I  only 
said  that  it  would  be  a  public  grave ;  we  went  into  no  details.  In  about 
twenty  minutes  I  drove  Mr.  Seddon  in  my  trap  to  63  Tollington  Park, 
and  I  measured  the  body.  I  found  a  very  bad  smell  in  the  room  where 
the  body  was.  When  we  got  downstairs  I  said  to  Mr.  Seddon  that,  as 
there  was  a  very  bad  smell,  if  he  liked  we  would  remove  the  body  at  the 
same  time  as  we  brought  the  coffin,  and  he  said  that  he  would  let  me 
know  later  on  when  he  let  me  know  about  the  funeral,  the  day  of  the 
funeral,  as  he  had  others  to  consult  on  the  matter.  I  then  left  to  make 
the  arrangements  that  were  necessary.  Between  three  and  four  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon  of  that  same  day  I  got  a  telephone  message  from  Mr. 
Seddon  saying  that  we  might  move  the  body  when  we  brought  the  coffin, 
and  settling  the  day  of  interment  for  Saturday.  The  body  was  removed 
to  78  Stroud  Green  Road  that  evening,  Thursday,  the  14th,  about  half- 
past  nine  as  near  as  I  can  remember.  The  funeral  took  place  about 
two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  Saturday,  16th  September,  starting  from 
78  Stroud  Green  Road.  I  did  rot  attend.  There  were  no  instructions 
to  send  carriages  for  other  mourners,  and  none  were  sent.  No  mourning 
carriage  went  to  No.  63  Tollington  Park,  and  nothing  started  from  there 
in  the  shape  of  a  funeral  conveyance.  I  received  £3  7s.  6d.  for  the 
funeral.  I  remember  it  being  reported  to  me  that  some  hair  had  been 
cut  from  the  deceased's  head  at  our  place.  I  believe  it  was  placed  in 

79 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


William  Nodes 


one  of  our  envelopes  and  handed  to  somebody,  but  I  do  not  know  to  whom. 
I  have  never  seen  it  since. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — There  is  no  suggestion  that 
this  was  a  pauper's  funeral.  The  number  of  bodies  which  are  buried  in 
a  grave  of  this  kind  depends  entirely  upon  the  cemetery  authorities  ;  it 
depends  upon  the  depth  of  the  grave  which  is  available,  and  the  cemetery 
authorities  decide  how  many  bodies  they  will  bury  in  one  of  these  graves. 

You  have  told  us  that  there  was  a  very,  very  bad  smell  in  the  room. 
Did  you  know  that  Mrs.  Seddon  had  a  little  baby? — I  did  know  that. 

Did  that  affect  your  suggestion  that  the  body  had  better  be  removed  1 
— Yes,  that  was  one  thing  that  had  to  do  with  it,  and  then  I  thought 
by  the  body  being  removed  it  would  give  them  an  opportunity  of  cleansing 
the  room.  I  am  not  suggesting  that  the  room  was  not  clean,  but  the 
smell  was  very  pregnant,  it  suggested  itself  to  me  as  being  a  smell  of 
faeces,  and  therefore  I  suggested  that  the  body  should  be  removed  at  the 
same  time  with  the  coffin.  There  is  nothing  unusual  in  a  body  being 
removed  in  that  way. 

Even  with  people  who  are  very  much  attached  to  the  dead  person? — 
When  there  are  no  unpleasant  surroundings  we  are  very  often  asked  to 
do  that.  There  was  nothing  unusual  in  the  funeral  being  from  our  place. 
I  should  say  that  it  was  shortly  after  three  o'clock  when  the  telephone 
message  came  to  me  that  Thursday  afternoon.  I  have  a  reason  for 
thinking  that  it  was  not  as  late  as  four  or  five.  I  did  not  suggest 
Saturday  as  the  day  for  the  funeral.  I  simply  put  the  question  to  the 
prisoner.  He  said,  "  When  can  the  funeral  be?  "  and  I  said,  "  Whenever 
you  like."  He  said,  "  Saturday  "  ;  and  I  replied,  "  If  you  wish  it."  If 
we  did  not  bury  on  Saturday  it  would  mean  burying  on  Monday,  and 
having  regard  to  the  state  that  the  body  was  in  and  the  diarrhoea  that 
had  taken  place,  the  warmth  of  the  weather,  and  the  fact  that  there  was 
no  lead  lining  to  the  coffin,  it  seemed  quite  reasonable  that  the  body 
should  be  buried  on  Saturday.  There  is  nothing  at  all  unusual  in  a 
person  who  died  early  on  Thursday  morning  being  buried  under  these 
conditions  on  the  Saturday. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — (Shown  envelope  marked 
No.  135.)  That  is  an  envelope  which  comes  from  my  establishment.  I 
cannot  recognise  the  handwriting  either  on  the  inside  or  on  the  outside. 

WALTER  THORLET,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a 
chemist  and  druggist  carrying  on  business  at  27  Crouch  Hill.  I  remember 
a  girl  coming  to  my  shop  with  reference  to  some  fly-papers  in  the  summer 
of  1911.  I  remember  subsequently  identifying  that  girl  at  the  police 
office,  the  girl  being  Margaret  Ann  Seddon — I  think  her  second  name  is 
Ann.  She  was  about  fifteen  years  old.  I  was  present  when  she  stood 
forward  in  the  Police  Court  in  the  presence  of  the  prisoners.  She  did  not 
say  anything,  but  I  heard  her  addressed  in  the  presence  of  the  prisoners 
as  Margaret  Seddon.  I  remember  the  date  on  which  she  came  to  my 
shop  ;  it  was  26th  August,  1911.  She  made  a  purchase  at  my  shop. 

Will  you  tell  us  what  it  was  she  purchased? — A  threepenny  packet  oi 
Ma 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  formally  object  to  this  evidence  as  evidence 
80 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Walter  Thorley 


against  the  prisoners,  but  if  your  lordship  thinks  it  is  evidence  I  shall  not 
press  it  at  this  stage.  I  say,  however,  that  this  evidence  cannot  be 
evidence  against  the  prisoners.  For  instance,  if  two  persons,  A  and  B, 
are  charged  with  the  wilful  murder  of  D,  ho\v  can  it  be  evidence  against 
either  A  or  B  to  say  that  C  bought  papers  containing  arsenic? 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Your  lordship  will  observe  the  question  I 
put.  I  submit  I  am  entitled  to  prove  the  fact  that  a  purchase  was  made 
by  the  girl  who,  according  to  the  evidence,  lived  and  helped  in  the  house. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — When  you  have  proved  that  Margaret  Seddon 
lived  in  the  house,  then  I  think  it  is  clearly  evidence,  but  you  are  now 
rather  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  has  been  proved,  my  lord.  Mary  Chater, 
the  servant,  proved  it,  and  so  did  Ernie  Grant.  Mary  Chater  said,  "  I 
slept  in  the  room  with  Maggie  and  her  youngest  sister." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — The  mere  fact  'Ehat  Margaret  Seddon  was  the 
daughter  of  the  accused  people  is  not  enough.  On  evidence  being 
adduced  that  Margaret  Seddon  was  living  in  the  house  on  26th  August, 
1911,  with  her  parents  I  shall  admit  the  evidence. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  I  am  right  in  saying  that  it  has 
been  proved,  but  it  can  be  put  beyond  all  question. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — There  is  another  objection,  and  that  is  that 
if  there  is  evidence  of  this  why  does  not  the  prosecution  call  Margaret 
Seddon  ? 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  an  observation ;  it  is  not  an  objection 
at  the  present  moment. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  leads  to  the  retort  that  it  is  open  to 
my  learned  friend  to  call  Margaret  Seddon. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  had  better  call  the  girl  Chater  again. 

M.  E.  E.  CHATER,  recalled,  further  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
— During  the  time  that  I  was  a  servant  at  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon' s,  Margaret 
or  Maggie,  the  daughter,  lived  there.  She  slept  in  the  house  throughout 
the  whole  time,  and  took  part  in  the  household  duties,  cleaning  the  floors, 
doing  the  kitchen  upstairs,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Did  Maggie  Seddon 
sleep  there  every  night? — Yes. 

Was  she  never  away? — No. 

Did  she  not  go  to  Southend? — Well,  she  went  there  once.  I  could 
not  say  the  exact  date,  but  she  did  go  down  there.  I  cannot  give  an 
idea  of  the  exact  date. 

How  soon  after  Miss  Barrow  was  taken  ill  did  she  go  down  to 
Southend? — I  could  not  say  the  date,  but  she  went  down  I  know.  I  do 
not  know  on  what  day  it  was  that  Miss  Barrow  came  back  from  Southend. 

WALTER  THORLEY,  recalled,  examination  continued — On  26th  August, 
1911,  Margaret  Seddon  purchased  from  me  a  threepenny  packet  of 
Mather's  fly-papers.  There  were  six  fly-papers  in  each  packet,  and  they 
were  similar  to  the  packet  of  Mather's  fly-papers  now  shown  me,  exhibit 
136.  Outside  that  packet  I  see  "Mather's  Chemical  Fly-papers.  To 
poison  flies,  wasps,  ants,  mosquitoes,  &c.  Prepared  only  by  the  sole 
F  81 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Walter  Thorley 

proprietors,  W.  Mather,  Limited,  Dyer  Street,  Manchester.  Poison. 
These  arsenic  fly-papers  can  only  be  sold  by  registered  chemists,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Pharmacy  Act."  The  words, 
"  These  arsenic  fly-papers,"  are  in  larger  print  than  the  other  portion 
of  the  sentence.  Taking  one  of  the  papers  out,  I  find  that  in  the  centre 
it  contains  the  following: — "Directions  for  use.  For  flies,  wasps,  ants, 
mosquitoes,  &c.,  spread  each  paper  on  a  dish  or  plate  and  keep  moist 
with  cold  water.  A  little  sugar,  beer,  or  wine  added  two  or  three  times 
a  day  makes  them  more  attractive.  Caution.  Remove  the  tray  or  dish 
beyond  the  reach  of  children  and  out  of  the  way  of  domestic  animals." 
Then,  at  the  bottom  of  it,  there  is  "Poison." 

(Fly-papers  were  handed  to  the  jury,  who  examined  them.) 

I  would  not  like  to  say  definitely  how  many  grains  of  arsenic  there 
are  in  each  of  those  fly-papers ;  there  might  be  more  in  one  than  in  another. 
I  do  not  keep  any  note  of  my  sales.  I  think  there  is  a  large  sale  for  those 
fly-papers ;  I  myself  sold  many  of  them  last  year.  I  was  asked  about 
this  sale  of  Mather's  fly-papers  about  a  week  before  the  day  on  which 
I  gave  evidence  at  the  Police  Court,  which  day  I  remember  was  2nd 
February,  1912.  I  was  asked  to  go  into  a  room  where  there  were  about 
twenty  women  and  girls  to  identify  the  girl  I  had  sold  the  fly-paperB  to. 
Nobody  went  with  me. 

Did  you  identify  her? — Yes. 

Did  you  subsequently  see  her  in  Court? — Yes. 

In  the  presence  of  the  prisoners? — Yes. 

And  did  you  hear  her  addressed  by  name? — Yes. 

As? — Margaret  Seddon. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Margaret  Ann  Seddon  is  the 
name  of  the  prisoner? — I  cannot  tell  for  certain  the  second  name,  but  it 
was  Margaret  Seddon. 

Was  there  any  second  name  at  all? — I  believe  so. 

On  26th  August,  1911,  you  say  a  girl  came  and  bought  some  fly- 
papers at  your  shop.  Did  you  ever  see  the  girl  who  came  to  your  shop  to 
buy  those  fly-papers  until  2nd  February,  1912,  when  you  professed  to 
identify  her  at  the  Police  Court? — I  may  have  done. 

Did  you? — I  cannot  say  for  certain. 

Will  you  say  that  you  did? — No,  I  cannot  recollect. 

What  sort  of  a  day  was  26th  August? — A  Saturday. 

Was  it  a  hot  day,  or  a  cloudy  day,  or  a  fine  day,  or  a  wet  day,  or 
what? — It  was  a  hot  day. 

It  was  a  very  hot  summer? — Yes. 

Was  this  a  hot  day  like  the  rest  of  the  hot  summer ? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  that  there  was  only  one  hour's  sunshine  on  that  day? — 
No. 

Saturday,  26th  August,  was  the  exceptional  day  of  that  year,  with 
very  little  sunshine,  but  you  remember  it  was  a  day  with  bright  sunshine? 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — He  has  not  said  that. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — He  said  it  was  a  bright  hot  day  like  the  other 
days. 

(To  Witness) — Can  you  tell  me  who   was   the   customer  you  served 
before  or  the  customer  you  served  after  this  girl? — No. 
82 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Walter  Thorley 


How  many  packets  of  these  Mather's  fly-papers  did  you  sell  this  last 
season? — The  last  season  or  in  August? 

In  August,  if  you  like? — Sixteen. 

Sixteen  packets? — Yes. 

And  eight  dozen  during  the  season? — Eight  dozen  in  August. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Where  does  the  sixteen  come  in  then? — 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Sixteen  packets  is  eight  dozen  papers. 

(To  Witness) — Did  you  keep  a  record  of  the  papers  or  the  persona 
they  were  sold  to? — No. 

Do  you  not  know  that  under  the  Pharmacy  Act  you  are  required  to 
keep  a  record  of  the  persons  to  whom  you  sold  the  papers  ? — No. 

Did  you  know  that  those  papers  contained  two,  three,  or  even  four 
grains  of  arsenic  a-piece? — I  can  realise  it. 

But  can  you  sell  two,  three,  or  four  grains  of  arsenic  to  a  person? — No. 

Yet  you  can  sell  the  paper  which  contains  it? — Yes. 

Witnout  registration? — Yes. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  do  Messrs.  Mather,  who  make  these  papers,  supply 
you  with  a  book  in  which  to  record  the  persons  who  buy  them? — Yes. 

Do  you  use  it? — No. 

Do  you  know  a  Mr.  Price,  a  chemist? — Yes. 

He  is  a  witness  in  this  case? — Yes. 

Does  he  carry  on  business  somewhere  near  you? — Yes. 

On  2nd  February  you  were  fetched  in  a  motor  car,  were  you  not,  by 
the  police? — Yes. 

To  come  to  the  Police  Court.  Did  Mr.  Price,  the  chemist,  come  down 
in  the  same  motor  car  with  you? — Yes. 

Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Price  was  coming  down  to  the  Police  Court  to 
prove  that  on  6th  December  (I  want  the  jury  to  bear  the  date  in  mind 
very  carefully,  because,  if  your  lordship  will  allow  me  to  say,  the  prisoner 
was  arrested  on  4th  December)  Margaret  Seddon  had  tried  to  buy  some 
fly-papers  from  Mr.  Price? — No. 

Do  you  swear  that? — Yes. 

Did  you  ask  Mr.  Price  what  he  was  going  down  to  the  Police  Court 
for?— No. 

Did  you  not  know? — I  thought  it  would  be  something  to  do  with 
poison. 

On  the  2nd  February,  when  this  had  been  in  the  paper  for  weeks, 
did  you  not  know  that  you  and  Mr.  Price  were  both  going  down  to  the 
Police  Court  to  give  evidence? — There  was  another  person  present. 

Did  you  never  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Price? — Not  about  what 
we  were  going  to  do. 

Not  about  the  girl  who  had  come  to  his  shop  for  some  fly-papers  on 
6th  December? — No. 

Do  you  swear  that? — Yes. 

You  did  not  know  Price  was  going  to  give  evidence  that  Margaret 
Seddon  (and  it  was  not  disputed)  had  been  to  his  shop  with  some  other 
young  ladies  on  6th  December  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  buy  some 
fly-papers  ? — No. 

And  that  he  had  refused  to  sell  them? — No. 

You  did  not  know  that? — No. 

83 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Walter  Thorley 


That  you  swear? — Yes. 

Did  you  see  an  account  of  this  inquest  in  the  paper  in  November? — 
No;  I  did  not  read  it  at  all. 

Had  you  often  seen  Mr.  Price? — No. 

Have  you  ever  talked  this  case  over  with  Mr.  Price? — No. 

From  27th  August,  1911,  your  attention  was  never  called  to  it  again 
until  one  week  before  2nd  February? — No,  that  is  right. 

How  many  customers  do  you  think  you  serve  a  day? — (No  answer.) 

A  good  many? — Yes,  a  good  many. 

And  a  good  many  girls,  do  you  not? — Yes. 

Had  the  police  been  to  you  in  December  to  ask  you  if  you  had  sold 
any  fly-papers  to  anybody  about  August  or  September? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  that  the  police  were  making  inquiries  at  other  chemists' 
shops  in  the  neighbourhood  early  in  December  as  to  whether  fly-papers  had 
been  purchased,  and,  if  so,  by  whom,  in  August  and  September  of  1911? 
—Yes. 

Did  you  tell  the  police  that  you  had  no  recollection  of  any  purchase? 
— No.  Of  course,  I  had  had  purchases  made. 

Did  they  ask  you  if  you  had  any  record  of  the  persons  you  had  sold 
them  to?— Yes. 

And,  of  course,  you  told  them  you  had  no  record? — Yes. 

Did  they  ask  you  if  you  could  identify  anybody  to  whom  you  had  sold 
fly-papers  about  that  date? — Yes. 

And  did  you  tell  them  that  it  was  a  long  while  ago,  and  that  you 
could  not  identify  any  one? — (No  answer.) 

Did  you  tell  them  you  could  not  identify  anybody? — I  said  I  did  not 
know  whether  I  could  or  not. 

How  many  times  did  the  police  come  to  you  in  all? — Oh,  I  do  not 
know;  a  good  many  times,  I  think. 

And  you  were  not  able  to  bring  your  memory  sufficiently  accurately 
back — I  will  not  put  it  stronger  than  that — until  February  or  the  latter 
end  of  January,  1912? — (No  answer.) 

That  is  so;  you  were  not  able  to  give  the  police  any  information  that 
you  could  identify  any  one  who  had  bought  fly  papers  in  August,  1911, 
until  February  of  1912,  could  you? — They  never  asked  me  before. 

But  you  said  they  had  been  to  you  a  good  many  times  to  ask  you  if 
you  could  identify  anybody  at  all.  Do  you  really  mean  to  tell  me  that 
you  profess  to  be  able  in  the  month  of  January,  1912,  to  identify  a  casual 
girl  who  comes  into  your  shop  on  the  26th  August,  1911,  and  buys  fly- 
papers?— Yes. 

You  do.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  how  you  profess  to  remember  the  date 
of  26th  August?  You  have  no  note,  have  you — no  memorandum  of  any 
sort  or  shape? — I  have  got  my  invoices.  She  had  the  last  packet  of  a  dozen 
that  was  ordered  on  one  day. 

Did  you  keep  a  record  of  the  sale  of  the  last  packet? — No. 

How  do  you  know  when  the  last  packet  was  sold? — She  asked  for  four 
packeta. 

Four   packets  or  four  papers? — Four  packets. 

Twenty-four  papers? — Twenty-four  papers. 

Threepence  a  packet? — Threepence  a  packet.     That  was  the  last  one 

84 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Walter  Thorley 


I  had.     I  put  them  down  to  order  in  the  book,  and  told  her  she  should 
have  some  more  on  Monday. 

Then  you  fix  the  date  from  the  fact  that  you  did  sell  your  last  packet 
on  26th  August? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  the  girl  Margaret  Seddon  at  all? — Yes. 

She  is  a  friend  of  your  daughter  Mabel,  is  she  not? — She  is  known  to 
her.  I  did  not  know  her  as  Margaret  Seddon  until  I  saw  her  in  the  Police 
Court,  although  I  have  seen  her  about  the  neighbourhood. 

The  girl  you  identified  in  the  Police  Court  as  the  person  who  came 
to  your  shop  to  buy  these  fly-papers  is  somebody  who  has  been  to  your 
house  to  see  your  daughter  Mabel? — Yes. 

On  two  occasions  she  called  to  see  Mabel,  did  she  not,  and  you  opened 
the  door — a  private  door? — She  did  not  come  in. 

You  opened  the  door  and  said  Mabel  was  not  at  home,  and  she  went 
away? — Well,  I  could  not  identify  anybody  I  did  that  to;  I  did  that  to 
many  other  girls. 

That  is  the  point  I  am  on.  The  person  you  identified  as  having  bought 
the  papers  after  this  lapse  of  time  is  the  identification  of  somebody  whom 
you  had  seen  on  your  premises  having  come  to  see  your  daughter.  That 
is  the  suggestion  I  make  to  you? — I  have  seen  her  in  the  shop. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  you  have  made  a  mistake.  I  am  not  suggesting 
that  it  is  a  wilful  mistake,  but  I  am  suggesting  to  you  that  you  have  made 
a  mistake,  and  that  the  girl  you  identified  on  the  2nd  February,  1912,  as 
the  girl  who  had  bought  fly-papers  at  your  establishment  on  26th  August, 
1911,  is  not  that  girl,  but  the  girl  who  had  twice  called  at  your  place  to 
see  your  daughter  Mabel.  Do  you  still  say  that  she  is  the  girl  who  bought 
the  fly-papers? — Yes. 

Let  us  come  to  the  identity.  You  are  fetched  in  a  motor  car  on  2nd 
February.  That  is  so,  is  it  not? — Yes. 

You  are  brought  down  to  the  Police  Court  with  Mr.  Price  and  somebody 
else  in  the  car.  Were  you  and  Mr.  Price  taken  in  together  to  a  room 
where  there  were  about  twenty  people? — No,  that  was  in  the  morning.  I 
came  down  by  myself  in  the  morning. 

You  had  been  down  to  the  Police  Court  before  you  came  down  in  the 
motor  car? — Yes. 

Had  you  seen  a  picture  of  Margaret  Seddon  in  the  papers? — Yes. 

Before  you  went  to  identify  her? — Not  that  day,  before  it. 

You  were  taken  down  by  the  police  to  identify  a  girl  whose  picture 
had  been  published  in  the  illustrated  papers,  and  which  you  had  seen? — 
I  refused  to  identify  the  girl  from  the  pictures  I  had  seen. 

Of  course,  naturally  you  would,  but  the  picture  was  shown  to  you  for 
the  purpose  of  identification? — It  was  not  shown  to  me  by  the  police. 

Anyhow,  you  tell  me  you  had  seen  it? — Yes. 

You  had  seen  the  picture  of  a  girl  whom  you  knew  to  be  Margaret 
Seddon,  the  daughter  of  the  man  who  is  charged  with  this  murder,  and  you 
are  taken  down  by  the  police  to  identify  that  particular  girl  among  twenty 
others.  That  is  so,  is  it  not? — (No  answer.) 

Is  that  so  ? — I  do  not  know  whether  they  knew  I  had  seen  the  picture. 

Did  they  not  happen  to  ask  you? — No. 

You  knew  you  had  seen  the  picture,  did  you  not? — Yes. 

«5 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Walter  Thorley 


Unless  I  had  asked  you  would  you  have  told  anybody  that  you  had 
seen  that  picture? — Yes. 

It  is  a  very  important  factor  in  the  case,  is  it  not,  on  the  question 
of  identification?  Out  of  those  twenty  people  that  you  were  taken  to 
identify  was  the  girl  you  identified  the  only  girl  who  had  got  her  hair 
down  her  back? — No. 

That  you  swear? — Yes. 

How  many  had? — At  least  one  other. 

Was  there  anybody  approaching  her  in  height? — Yes. 

Of  course,  the  moment  you  saw  Margaret  Seddon,  that  was  a  face 
that  was  familiar  to  you? — Yes. 

Familiar  to  you  for  two  reasons — first,  because  you  had  seen  it  in 
the  illustrated  papers ;  secondly,  because  you  had  seen  her  come  to  the  house 
to  meet  your  daughter.  Anyhow,  that  would  be  a  face  familiar  to  you? — 
Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Do  you  know  the  Seddons  at 
all — have  you  had  any  acquaintance  or  friendship  with  them? — No. 

Nothing  to  do  with  them? — No. 

I  want  you  to  be  quite  clear  about  the  reason  for  your  remembering 
this  particular  purchase.  Will  you  tell  us  now  what  happened  when  the 
girl  came  into  the  shop?  Tell  us  in  your  own  way  what  took  place? — 
She  came  in  and  asked  for  some  fly-papers.  I  said,  "  Do  you  want  the 
sticky  ones?"  She  said,  "No,  the  arsenic  ones." 

Have  you  any  special  reason  for  remembering  this  particular  sale  by 
you  to  the  girl  you  identify  as  Margaret  Seddon? — Yes. 

Will  you  tell  us  what  the  special  reason  is? — She  asked  for  four  packets 
of  fly-papers,  and  I  had  only  one  in  stock. 

Was  any  particular  kind  of  fly-paper  referred  to? — Arsenic  fly-papers. 

Who  used  those  words? — Margaret  Seddon. 

Then  what  did  you  say? — I  said,  "Will  you  take  a  packet?"  She 
said,  "I  will  take  four."  I  said,  "That  is  the  only  one  I  have.  I 
shall  have  some  more  on  Monday."  She  took  the  packet  and  left  the 
shop. 

Had  you  any  more  Mather's  fly-papers  in  stock  than  that  one  packet 
when  the  girl  came  in? — No. 

Did  you  make  any  note  or  entry  in  a  book  on  that  date? — Yes. 

Did  you  order  any  more  Mather's  fly-papers? — Yes. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Was  this  last  packet 
of  fly-papers  on  the  26th  August,  1911,  a  full  one,  or  did  it  contain  only 
four  papers  ? — It  contained  six. 

It  was  a  full  packet? — Yes. 

Further  re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Do  you  remember 
making  a  statement  to  the  police  which  was  taken  down  in  writing? — Yes. 

Had  the  police  been  to  you  before  that,  or  was  it  the  first  time? — • 
They  had  been  before,  I  think. 

Do  you  know  how  often  before  ? — They  called  round  in  December,  and 
then  while  the  Police  Court  proceedings  were  on. 

Will  you  just  look    at    your    statement?       Is    that    your    signature 
(handed)?— Yes. 
86 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Walter  Thorley 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  will  take  the  date  from  my  learned  friend, 
31st  January,  1912. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes. 

(To  Witness) — Did  you  go  to  the  Police  Court  twice  on  the  day  that 
you  gave  evidence? — Yes. 

When  did  you  go  first? — In  the  morning. 

That  was,  as  I  understand  you,  not  in  a  motor  car? — No. 

Did  you  go  alone  or  with  anybody  else? — By  myself. 

When  was  it  that  you  saw  the  twenty  girls  and  women  in  a  room? — 
In  the  morning. 

When  you  were  by  yourself? — Yes. 

Was  that  the  Police  Court? — Yes. 

Did  you  then  go  home? — Yes. 

You  did  not  remain  at  the  Police  Court? — No,  I  was  there  for  perhaps 
an  hour  afterwards,  and  then  I  was  told  I  could  go  home. 

Then  later  on  you  did  go  to  the  Police  Court  again? — Yes. 

Was  that  the  occasion  when  you  went  in  the  motor  car  with  Mr. 
Price? — Yes. 

Was  there  anybody  else  there? — Yes,  a  detective  sergeant. 

Were  you  fetched  in  the  motor  car? — Yes. 

Did  you  know  what  for? — Yes,  to  prove  the  sale  of  the  papers. 

To  go  to  the  Police  Court  to  give  evidence? — Yes. 

And  you  did  go  to  the  Police  Court,  and  you  were  called  that  after- 
noon, were  you  not? — Yes. 

2nd  February.  There  is  one  other  matter  with  regard  to  the  girl. 
Did  you  know  this  girl,  whom  you  subsequently  identified  and  now  know  aa 
Margaret  Seddon,  at  all  before  she  came  into  the  shop? — No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Before  Margaret  Seddon  came  into  your 
shop  on  26th  August,  did  you  know  her  as  Margaret  Seddon? — No. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — When  she  came  into  your  shop  and  made 
this  purchase  on  26th  August,  did  you  recognise  her  as  a  person  you  had 
seen  before  or  not? — I  had  seen  her  before. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  not  quite  an  answer.  Did  you 
recognise  her  then  as  a  person  whom  you  had  seen  before? — Yes. 

By  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Did  you  know  her  name? — No. 

Or  who  she  was? — No. 

ROBERT  JOHN  PRICE,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  a  phar- 
maceutical chemist  at  103  Tollington  Park,  Holloway.  I  went  with  Mr. 
Thorley  in  a  motor  car  on  2nd  February  to  the  Police  Court. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  do  not  remember  that  I  had 
any  conversation  with  Mr.  Thorley  as  to  the  object  of  our  visit  to  the 
Police  Court. 

Dr.  JOHN  FREDERICK  PAUL,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  am 
a  member  of  the  Royal  College  of  Surgeons,  and  I  reside  at  215  Isledon 
Road,  Finsbury  Park.  I  was  called  as  a  witness  at  the  inquest  on  23rd 
November,  1911.  I  attended  Miss  Barrow,  who  lived  at  63  Tollington 
Park,  as  a  patient.  She  came  to  me  first  in  November,  1910.  I  think 

87 


Trial   of  the  Seddons. 

DP.  John  Frederick  Paul 

she  was  suffering  then  from  congestion  of  the  liver,  but  it  was  nothing  of 
any  consequence.  I  think  I  only  saw  her  once  at  that  time.  She  came 
to  me  again  with  Mrs.  Seddon  on  1st  August,  1911.  I  judged  that  she 
had  congestion  of  the  liver  then,  but  it  was  nothing  of  any  consequence, 
nothing  to  prevent  her  going  out.  I  gave  her  a  mixture  containing 
rhubarb,  bicarbonate  of  soda  and  carbonate  of  magnesia,  which  is  quite 
harmless.  She  came  to  me  again  on  3rd  August,  I  think,  with  the  boy 
Ernie  Grant,  and  I  prescribed  the  same  medicine,  as  she  was  suffering  from 
the  same  thing.  I  dispensed  the  medicine.  She  had  a  bottle  on  each 
day.  I  think  she  came  again  on  17th  August,  and  I  gave  her  the  same 
medicine,  as  she  was  suffering  from  the  same  thing.  I  think  she  had  the 
boy  Ernie  Grant  with  her.  I  saw  her  again  on  22nd  August  in  my  con- 
sulting-room, and,  as  far  as  I  remember,  the  boy  Grant  was  with  her. 
She  complained  of  asthma,  and  I  prescribed  bicarbonate  of  potash  and  some 
mix  vomica. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — She  had  not  said  anything  about  asthma 
on  the  previous  occasions. 

Examination  continued — The  asthma  of  which  she  was  complaining 
was  very  slight,  and  there  was  no  necessity  for  her  to  keep  indoors,  or 
anything  of  that  kind.  I  saw  her  again  in  my  consulting-room  on  27th 
August.  The  boy  Grant  was  with  her  then.  She  was  suffering  from 
asthma,  and  did  not  complain  of  anything  else.  I  gave  her  some  chloral 
hydrate.  There  was  no  need  for  her  to  stay  at  home.  I  saw  her  again 
in  my  consulting-room  on  30th  August.  The  boy  Grant  was  with  her  that 
time.  She  complained  of  asthma,  and  nothing  else,  and  I  gave  her  some 
extract  of  grindelia.  The  asthma  was  not  of  any  consequence  then,  and 
there  was  no  need  for  her  to  stay  at  home.  I  would  not  describe  her  as 
a  person  who  was  ill  at  all  under  those  circumstances.  I  cannot  say  that 
I  saw  any  attack  of  asthma.  I  treated  her  on  the  symptoms  she  told  me 
she  had  in  the  night.  She  did  not  complain  on  any  of  these  visits  in 
August  of  diarrhoea,  sickness,  or  pain.  On  1st  and  3rd  August,  when  I 
found  that  she  had  congestion  of  the  liver,  she  complained  of  constipation. 
She  did  not  complain  of  any  rash  or  of  any  running  from  the  eyes.  I  never 
saw  her  again  after  30th  August.  I  was  called  on  a  Saturday,  I  think  it 
was  2nd  September,  between  half -past  six  and  eight  in  the  evening,  by 
Margaret  Seddon,  who  wanted  me  to  go  and  see  Miss  Barrow,  but  I  could 
not  go  as  I  was  too  busy. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  think  you  say  Miss  Barrow 
when  you  first  saw  her  was  suffering  from  congestion  of  the  liver? — Yes. 

Congestion  of  the  liver  might  produce  a  certain  amount  of  colic  pain, 
might  it  not? — Yes. 

She  was  a  well-nourished  woman,  was  she  not,  and  rather  inclined  to 
be  stout  than  thin? — Yes,  she  was. 

We  have  had  some  evidence  that  she  was  a  woman  who  experienced 
considerable  difficulty  in  her  breathing  after  she  had  been  up  and  down 
stairs.  She  was  the  sort  of  woman  whose  appearance  would  convey  that 
to  you  as  a  medical  man,  would  it  not? — No,  I  do  not  think  it  would.  I 
did  not  notice  anything  wrong  with  her  breathing. 

Would   you   say   she    was   above   or   below   the   average   weight? — If 
anything,  I  should  say  she  was  a  little  above. 
88 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

DP.  John  Frederick  Paul 

You  say  she  complained  of  asthma,  but  you  did  not  yourself  hear  any 
asthmatic  attack? — No. 

Of  course,  asthmatic  attacks  are  intermittent? — Yes. 

And  it  is  a  fact  that  very  often  they  are  very  much  worse  at  night 
when  the  person  is  lying  down? — Yes. 

I  notice  that  you  mention  an  American  drug  you  gave  her,  grindelia. 
I  see  it  is  a  specific  "  for  reducing  the  frequency  of  convulsions  and 
spasmodic  attacks  which  occur  in  asthma"? — Yes. 

So,  although  you  did  not  see  it,  you  accepted  her  story  that  she  was 
suffering  from  asthma? — Yes. 

On  2nd  September,  Saturday,  Miss  Margaret  Seddon  did  come  to  fetch 
you? — Yes. 

And  you  were  very  busy,  and  you  advised  that  they  should  fetch 
another  doctor? — Yes. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  RENTOUL — I  think  it  was  Mrs.  Seddon  who  first 
brought  Miss  Barrow  to  your  house? — Yes,  it  was. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Mr.  Seddon,  I  think, 
when  the  inquest  came  on,  asked  you  if  you  would  attend  the  inquest? — Yes. 

Dr.  HENRY  GEORGE  SWORN,  examined  by  Mr.  TRAVERS  HUMPHREYS — I 
am  a  doctor  of  medicine  and  licentiate  of  the  Royal  College  of  Physicians,  5 
Highbury  Crescent,  Highbury.  I  am  and  I  have  been  for  over  ten  years 
the  family  doctor  of  the  two  prisoners.  On  2nd  September  last  I  was 
telephoned  for  to  attend  Miss  Barrow  between  ten  and  eleven  o'clock  at 
night,  and  I  went  to  63  Tollington  Park  and  saw  Miss  Barrow  in  bed. 
Mrs.  Seddon  was  in  the  room  at  the  time.  I  do  not  remember  any  one 
else  being  there.  I  got  the  history  of  the  case  from  Miss  Barrow  and 
from  Mrs.  Seddon,  being  told  that  on  Friday,  1st  September,  she  had 
diarrhoea  and  sickness.  I  mentioned  the  fact  to  Mrs.  Seddon,  that  she 
appeared  to  be  very  ill,  and  asked  how  long  she  had  been  ill.  She  said 
ehe  had  been  ill  on  and  off  for  a  long  time,  that  she  had  had  a  liver  attack, 
and  that  she  had  suffered  from  asthma. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  asked  if  she  had  been  attended  to  by 
any  other  doctor  about  that  time,  and  they  said  that  she  had  been  attended 
by  another  doctor,  that  they  had  sent  for  him  at  twelve  o'clock  that  day, 
and  again  at  eight  o'clock. 

Examination  continued — I  examined  Miss  Barrow,  and  found  that  she 
had  pain  in  her  abdomen,  sickness,  and  diarrhoaa.  I  was  told  that  she 
had  been  vomiting.  I  prescribed  bismuth  and  morphia. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — The  bismuth  was  to  stop  the  sickness  and 
the  morphia  to  soothe  the  pain.  I  gave  her  ten-grain  doses  of  bismuth  and 
five-minim  doses  of  morphia  in  the  same  mixture.  She  was  to  take  a  dose 
of  that  quantity  every  four  hours. 

Examination  continued — I  saw  her  again  next  morning  between  eleven 
and  twelve,  and  found  her  to  be  still  about  the  same  as  she  was  when  I 
saw  her  the  day  before.  Mrs.  Seddon  was  present,  and  told  me  that  Miss 
Barrow  was  no  better.  I  prescribed  the  same  medicine.  I  saw  Miss  Barrow 
again  on  Monday,  the  4th,  and  found  her  to  be  the  same. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — She  was  being  sick  two  or  three  times  a 
day,  and  being  purged;  it  was  not  continuous.  The  diarrhoea  and  sickness 

89 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn 

had  not  stopped ;  my  prescription  had  been  ineffective.  She  was  not  much 
weaker;  she  was  about  the  same — she  was  no  weaker.  I  was  not  satisfied 
with  her  condition  upon  that  day.  I  mentioned  the  fact,  and  Mrs.  Seddon 
told  me  that  she  would  not  take  her  medicine.  She  said  that  to  me  before 
I  went  up  and  also  before  Miss  Barrow. 

Examination  continued — Miss  Barrow  was  deaf,  and  I  should  say 
that  she  could  not  hear  what  was  said  if  it  was  spoken  in  an  ordinary 
tone  of  voice.  I  gave  the  patient  an  effervescing  mixture  of  citrate  of 
potash  and  bicarbonate  of  soda,  which  would  be  administered  in  two 
separate  parts.  On  that  day  the  diarrhoea  was  not  so  bad,  and  therefore 
I  gave  nothing  for  the  diarrhoea.  I  told  Miss  Barrow  that  if  she  did  not 
take  her  medicine  I  should  have  to  send  her  into  the  hospital,  and  she 
said  she  would  not  go.  I  called  again  upon  the  next  day,  the  5th,  and 
found  her  to  be  slightly  better.  Mrs.  Seddon  was  there  when  I  saw  her, 
and  she  said  the  sickness  was  not  so  bad,  and  that  the  diarrhoea  was  a 
little  better  than  the  day  before.  I  did  not  alter  my  prescription  in  any 
way  on  that  day;  I  continued  the  effervescing  mixture.  On  the  6th,  7th, 
and  8th  I  found  the  patient  to  be  slightly  improved,  and  I  continued  the 
same  medicine. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKMLL — On  the  4th  I  dropped  the  morphia,  because 
the  abdominal  pain  was  less. 

Examination  continued — On  the  9th  I  found  her  to  be  about  the  same, 
but  on  that  day  Mrs.  Seddon  mentioned  to  me  that  her  motion  was  so 
very  offensive  that  I  gave  the  patient  a  blue  pill  which  contained  mercury. 
I  told  Mrs.  Seddon  that  if  the  patient  was  any  worse  on  the  Sunday  she 
could  telephone  for  me,  but  I  did  not  get  any  telephone  message.  I  did 
not  call  again  until  Monday,  the  llth,  when  I  saw  her,  I  think,  between 
ten  and  twelve  in  the  forenoon.  She  was  about  the  same  as  when  I  saw 
her  on  the  Saturday.  I  saw  Mrs.  Seddon  that  day,  but  she  did  not  tell 
me  whether  the  diarrhoea  or  the  sickness  had  stopped,  or  anything  about 
it.  On  that  day  Miss  Barrow  was  suffering  principally  from  weakness 
caused  by  the  diarrhoea  and  sickness  that  she  had  had.  She  had  not 
any  pain;  if  she  had  had  any  I  should  have  sent  her  something  for  it. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  was  keeping  on  with  the  effervescing 
mixtures  at  that  time,  and  I  ordered  her  to  take  Valentine's  meat  juice 
and  also  some  brandy  for  the  weakness. 

Examination  continued — With  regard  to  the  diet,  I  instructed  Mrs. 
Seddon,  while  the  sickness  was  on,  to  give  soda  water  and  milk,  and  then 
I  advised  her  to  give  her  some  gruel,  and  then  later  on  I  told  her  she 
could  give  her  some  light  puddings — milk  puddings — in  addition  to  the 
Valentine's  meat  juice.  I  do  not  think  Miss  Barrow's  mental  condition  was 
ever  very  good;  on  the  llth  it  was  not  very  good.  Nothing  was  said  to 
me  by  anybody  that  day  about  Miss  Barrow  making  a  will.  I  looked  upon 
her  as  a  woman  to  whom  you  would  have  to  explain  a  thing  like  a  will 
if  she  had  to  make  one;  she  would  not  grasp  the  whole  of  the  facts,  but 
she  would  be  quite  capable  of  making  a  will  if  you  explained  it  to  her. 
Her  mental  condition  did  not  improve  at  all  from  the  first  day  I  saw  her  on 
2nd  September;  I  did  not  consider  it  got  any  worse;  it  remained  about 
the  same.  I  think  it  was  some  time  after  the  4th  that  I  first  ordered 
Valentine's  meat  juice  for  her.  I  did  not  see  her  on  Tuesday,  the  12th. 
90 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

DP.  Henry  George  Sworn 

I  saw  her  on  Wednesday,  the  13th,  I  think,  between  eleven  and  twelve- 
in  the  forenoon.  She  was  rather  worse;  she  had  diarrhoea  on  again,  but 
she  did  not  seem  to  be  in  much  pain,  and  I  gave  her  a  mixture  for  it.  She- 
had  a  little  return  of  sickness,  but  it  was  not  much.  I  gave  her  a  bismuth, 
and  chalk  mixture  that  day. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — She  was  still  about  the  same  so  far  as  her 
strength  was  concerned;  in  fact,  she  was  a  little  weaker  on  account  of  the 
diarrhoea  coming  on  again. 

Examination  continued — I  saw  Mrs.  Seddon,  and  I  simply  told  her 
that  the  patient  was  worse,  and  I  would  send  her  up  a  diarrhoea  mixture- 
that  she  would  take  after  each  motion.  I  do  not  remember  giving  any 
instructions  as  to  diet  on  the  13th.  I  thought  that  she  was  then  in  a 
little  danger,  but  I  did  not  consider  her  to  be  in  a  critical  condition. 

Did  you  expect  her  to  die  that  night? — I  did  not  expect  her  to  die- 
any  more  than  I  should  expect  any  patient  to  die  in  that  condition.  Any 
patient  who  had  had  an  attack  of  diarrhoea  and  sickness,  and  got  weak, 
would  be  likely  to  die — would  stand  a  chance  of  dying.  The  patient  might 
die  from  heart  failure  or  anything  like  that. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Her  pulse  was  rather  weak,  it  was  weaker 
than  on  other  days,  and  I  put  that  down  to  the  purging.  It  was  not 
intermittent,  it  was  weak. 

Examination  continued — The  13th  was  the  last  time  I  saw  her.  During1 
the  time  I  was  attending  her  I  took  her  temperature  twice,  as  far  as  I  can 
remember.  On  the  one  day  the  temperature  was  up  to  101,  and  on  other 
days  it  was  fairly  normal.  I  think  it  was  on  the  7th  that  the  temperature 
was  up  to  101,  and  some  days  it  was  99.  It  was  not  a  continuous  tem- 
perature. I  never  found  it  subnormal.  I  did  not  take  the  temperature 
on  the  13th.  The  next  I  heard  about  Miss  Barrow  was  at  7  o'clock  on 
the  morning  of  the  14th,  when  Mr.  Seddon  came  to  my  house  and  said 
that  Miss  Barrow  had  died  in  the  early  morning,  about  6  o'clock,  I  think 
he  said.  I  asked  him  how  she  was,  and  he  said  that  she  seemed  to  have- 
a  lot  of  pain  in  her  inside,  and  then  she  went  off  sort  of  insensible. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — He  said  that  they  had  been  up  all  night 
with  her,  and  she  had  been  in  a  considerable  amount  of  pain,  and  then  went 
off  a  sort  of  unconscious,  insensible.  Nothing  else  was  said.  I  do  not 
remember  him  telling  me  of  having  put  a  hot  flannel  over  her  stomach. 

Examination  continued — I  do  not  remember  whether  he  said  that  they 
had  given  her  anything  at  all  in  the  night ;  I  did  not  ask  him.  I  said  to 
him,  "  I  am  going  to  give  you  the  certificate." 

You  gave  a  certificate  then? — Yes. 

As  I  understand,  you  had  not  seen  the  body  after  death? — No.  The 
last  time  I  saw  her  was  about  11  o'clock  the  day  before.  I  certified  the 
death  as  due  to  epidemic  diarrhoea.  Exhibit  41  is  the  certificate  of  death, 
and  it  states,  "  Cause  of  death,  epidemic  diarrhoea."  All  that  I  certified 
was  the  cause  of  death,  and  "duration  of  illness,  ten  days."  That  was 
a  mistake  in  the  duration ;  a  miscalculation.  I  attended  from  the  2nd 
to  the  14th,  and  I  stated  that  at  the  coroner's  Court.  The  information- 
as  to  her  rank  or  profession  was  not  filled  in  by  me. 

Was  there  any  arsenic  in  any  of  the  medicines  which  you  prescribed  ? — * 
No,  there  was  not  any  arsenic.  There  was  no  reason  for  giving  it. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn 

AB  a,  fact,  there  was  not? — No.       I  have  the  prescription  here. 
Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — When  you  say  "  no  arsenic  " 
you  cannot   say,   of  course,   that  carbonate  of  bismuth  does  not  contain 
minute   quantities   of   arsenic? — No,   without   I  tested  it.        Carbonate   of 
bismuth  has  been  known  to  contain  arsenic. 

I  do  not  suggest  that  there  would  be  sufficient  arsenic  to  account 
for  the  death,  but  you  cannot  say  that  carbonate  of  bismuth  does  not 
contain  arsenic — it  is  well  known  as  an  adulteration  of  carbonate  of 
bismuth? — It  has  been  known,  but  I  should  not  think  that  what  we  have 
from  our  chemist  would  have  it. 

Do  you  make  up  your  own  medicines? — I  have  some  one  who  makes 
up  my  medicines. 

But  you  would  get  the  best  drugs  you  possibly  could? — I  do. 
You  had  attended  the  Seddons  for  about  ten  years? — Yes. 
You  had  not  attended  Miss  Barrow  before,  because  we  know  she  had 
been  attended  by  Dr.  Paul? — Yes. 

And  you  knew,  or  you  know  now,  at  any  rate,  that  Dr.  Paul  had 
said  he  was  too  busy  to  attend  her  on  that  day,  and  therefore  you  were 
sent  for? — Yes. 

There  was  no  question  of  professional  etiquette,  because  Dr.  Paul  had 
refused  to  come? — I  asked  about  that  at  the  time,  because  I  would  not 
have  taken  the  case. 

Now,  Dr.   Paul  has  told  us  that  Miss  Barrow  had  been  complaining 
on  and  off  from  about  3rd  August  of  congestion  of  the  liver.       Dr.  Paul 
told  us — I  do  not  know  whether  you  will  agree — that  congestion  of  the 
liver  would  itself  produce  severe  colic  pains  1 — Yes,  it  would. 
Is  that  due  to  the  improper  action  of  the  bile? — Yes. 
Bile  is  a  very  acid  and  a  very  irritant  thing,  and  if  it  is  not  properly 
secreted  it  would  cause  a  great  deal  of  pain  and  intense  pain? — You  get  it 
sometimes  if  you  have  too  much  bile  secreted,   and  sometimes  if  you  do 
not  have  any  at  all  you  have  the  same  effect. 

Dr.  Paul  had  been  giving  her  rhubarb  and  magnesia  as  early  as  the 
1st  August  of  that  year.  Did  you  notice  any  signs  of  asthma  at  all  when 
you  saw  Miss  Barrow? — Yes,  I  told  Mrs.  Seddon  that  she  appeared  to  me 
to  be  a  woman  that  suffered  from  asthma. 

Did  you  infer  that  she  was  a  woman  rather  above  the  average  weight 
for  her  height?  Do  you  agree  with  that? — Yes. 

And  a  woman  of  a  somewhat  full  temperament? — There  were  appear- 
ances about  her  as  if  there  was  a  certain  amount  of  arterial  tension  from 
attacks  of  asthma — in  the  blood  vessels. 

When  you  saw  her  for  the  first  time  on  2nd  September  was  she  in 
the  condition  of  a  woman  who  had  been  passing  through  the  incipient  stages 
of  an  attack  of  epidemic  diarrhoea? — No. 

You  did  not  see,  then,  any  evidence  of  acute  diarrhoea  at  that  time? — 
No,  I  saw  no  evidence  of  it  being  previous  to  that.  She  had  diarrhoea 
at  that  time. 

According  to  you,   as  far  as  you  knew,   it  had  commenced   on  that 
day? — Yes,  the  day  before  I  saw  her. 
That  would  be  on  the  1st?— Yes. 

•92 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn 

The  condition  of  diarrhoea  was  fairly  acute  on  that  day,  was  it  notl — 
Yes. 

Was  she  in  a  condition  to  go  to  the  lavatory  on  that  day  or  any  othei 
day  ? — I  should  think  she  could  go  to  the  lavatory ;  she  was  not  so  bad 
as  that. 

But  you  would  not  have  advised  it? — I  should  not  have  advised  it, 
but  I  have  no  doubt  she  could  have  gone.  She  might  have  had  heart 
failure  there. 

I  think,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  inspected  the  stools  and  the  vomit, 
did  you  not? — Yes.  Mrs.  Seddon  showed  me  one  of  the  motions. 

Were  they  particularly  offensive? — They  were,  very. 

And  I  think  you  gave  her  a  carbolic  sheet  to  put  up  to  counteract  the 
smell? — I  ordered  her  to  put  a  carbolic  sheet  up. 

Mrs.  Seddon  described  the  symptoms  to  you? — Yes. 

Have  you  any  doubt  whatever  that  Miss  Barrow  seemed  very  ill  when 
you  first  saw  her? — Oh,  she  was,  yes,  very  ill. 

Did  Mrs.  Seddon  tell  you  that  she  had  been  ill  on  and  off  for  some 
little  time? — Yes,  but  not  with  this  attack. 

And  that  the  vomiting  and  diarrhoea  started  the  previous  day? — Yes. 

Did  what  you  saw  of  the  case  lead  you  to  believe  that  that  was  a 
true  statement  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Seddon? — Yes. 

The  symptoms  you  found  were  consistent  with  that  state  of  things? — 
Quite. 

Mrs.  Seddon  was  in  attendance — there  was  no  nurse? — No. 

Later  on,  when  you  threatened  to  send  Miss  Barrow  to  the  hospital 
if  she  would  not  take  her  medicine,  did  she  say  that  the  Seddons  could 
manage  for  her  very  well? — She  said  that  Mrs.  Seddon  could  attend  to 
her  very  well  indeed,  and  she  was  very  attentive. 

As  far  as  you  could  judge,  during  the  whole  time  that  you  saw  Miss 
Barrow,  did  she  seem  attached  to  Mrs.  Seddon? — She  did. 

And  as  far  as  you  could  see  was  Mrs.  Seddon  very  kind  to  her? — As  far 
as  I  could  see  she  was  very  kind. 

And  attentive? — And  attentive. 

You  called,  then,  on  the  3rd,  we  have  heard,  and  on  the  4th,  and 
on  the  4th  you  thought  she  was  getting  better  ? — Not  on  the  4th ;  the  4th 
was  when  I  changed  the  medicine. 

The  diarrhoea  was  not  so  bad? — The  diarrhoea  was  not  so  bad,  but 
the  sickness  was  bad. 

She  was,  of  course,  getting  weaker  naturally? — Yes 

I  suppose  the  weather  was  very  hot? — Yes,  very  hot. 

And,  of  course,  owing  to  the  heat  of  the  weather,  with  a  woman  with 
her  asthmatic  tendency,  and  this  arterial  tension  about  her,  and  things  of 
that  sort,  she  would  very  rapidly  get  weaker? — She  would. 

May  I  take  it  that  one  of  the  main  dangers  in  an  attack  of  this  kind 
was  the  danger  of  heart  failure? — It  is. 

I  think  you  said  that  even  if  she  went  to  the  lavatory,  although  she 
might  have  been  able  to  do  it,  she  might  at  any  moment  have  failed  from 
heart  failure? — Yes. 

Now,  it  was  Mrs.  Seddon  who  told  you,  was  it  not,  that  Miss  Barrow 
would  not  take  her  medicine? — Yes. 

93 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  Henry  Geor-e  Sworn 

She  objected  to  this  bismuth  mixture,  which  would  be  chalk  and  milk? — 
3Io,  Mrs.  Seddon  did  not  say  that;  Mrs.  Seddon  said  that  Miss  Barrow 
would  not  take  her  medicine,  and  asked  me  to  give  her  a  good  talking  to, 
-and  I  said,  "  I  will  go  up  and  talk  to  her,"  and  so  I  told  her.  I  said,  "  If 
jou  will  not  take  your  medicine  you  will  have  to  go  to  the  hospital,"  and 
I  gave  her  a  dose  of  medicine. 

That  was  the  chalk  mixture? — The  chalk  and  bismuth,  and  I  said, 
"  She  is  very  thirsty.  She  is  fearfully  thirsty.  If  I  send  her  an 
•effervescing  mixture  she  will  be  only  too  pleased  to  take  it."  The  patient 
herself  said  she  was  thirsty. 

Thirst  is  the  normal  condition  of  that  illness? — It  is  quite  a  normal 
condition. 

And,  if  I  may  use  the  expression,  an  abnormal  thirst  is  the  normal 
condition  of  that? — That  complaint,  yes. 

Of  course,  this  first  medicine  you  gave  her,  this  carbonate  of  bismuth, 
would  have  to  be  suspended  in  some  gummy  solution? — It  is  suspended 
in  mucilage — gum  and  sugar. 

So  you  would  have  a  thickish  sort  of  medicine  which  would  not  be 
very  thirst  quenching? — No,  it  would  not. 

And  you  could  quite  understand  the  reluctance  of  a  person  who  is 
thirsty  to  take  this  symppy  white  milky  stuff? — Yes. 

You  suggested  a  change  by  giving  her  citrate  of  potash  and  carbonate 
of  soda,  an  effervescing  drink  made  in  two  mixtures,  each  being  non- 
effervescing  by  itself? — Yes.  The  little  boy  told  me  he  did  see  Mr. 
Seddon  give  the  mixture,  that  he  had  two  glasses,  and  he  poured  the  con- 
tents of  the  one  into  the  other,  and  it  effervesced. 

That  would  be  your  effervescing  mixture? — Yes. 
And  that  would  be  white? — Quite  clear,  like  water. 
Did  she  give  you  any  reason  for  disliking  her  medicine? — No. 
Did  you  talk  to  Miss  Barrow  in  the  way  you  are  talking  to  us? — Yes. 
And  you  made  her  hear? — I  could  make  her  hear  quite  easily.       She 
•was  not  stone  deaf. 

When  you  said  that  you  would  send  her  to  the  hospital  she  heard 
clearly  enough  then? — She  heard  that.  I  never  found  any  difficulty  in 
speaking  to  her. 

Did  you  hear  on  the  next  day  that  Miss  Barrow  had  left  her  bed  and 
had  gone  into  the  boy's  bedroom  on  the  night  of  the  4th? — No. 

Did  you  hear  it  on  the  5th? — No,  I  heard  that  she  had  been  out  of 
the  bed. 

Did  you  hear  that  she  had  gone  to  the  boy's  bed? — I  did  not  hear 
that  she  had  gone  to  the  boy's  bed.  I  know  she  could  get  out  of  the  bed 
if  she  liked.  I  did  not  remonstrate  with  her.  I  told  Mrs.  Seddon  that 
she  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  get  out  of  bed. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  do  you  think  it  was  a  very  good  thing  for  a  boy 
to  be  sleeping  with  her  when  she  was  in  that  condition? — No,  I  never 
knew  the  boy  was  sleeping  with  her.  I  do  not  remember  seeing  him  in  the 
bedroom. 

Did  Miss  Barrow  say  anything  to  you  about  being  plagued  with  the 
•flies  in  the  room? — No. 

There  was  a  very  big  epidemic  of  flies  about  that  time  ? — I  have  never 
94 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn 

seen  so  many  as  I  saw  in  that  room.       I  put  it  down  to  the  smell  of  the 
motions  which  would  attract  them. 

Do  you  happen  to  know  that  the  medical  officer  of  health  for  the 
district  had  circulated  a  bill  about  flies  (No.  137)? — No,  I  did  not  know. 
It  had  not  been  sent  to  the  medical  men — it  is  sent  to  the  people,  I  think. 

On  the  5th  did  you  notice  any  fly-papers  in  the  room? — No. 

I  suppose  you  would  not  go  much  near  the  mantelpiece? — No,  I 
should  not  go  near  it. 

The  temperature  on  the  7th  of  101  was  the  maximum,  as  far  as  you 
know? — Yes,  as  far  as  I  know. 

But  you  did  not  take  her  temperature  on  the  13th? — No. 

I  think  you  said  that  she  might  have  some  brandy? — Yes,  I  told  them 
to  give  her  brandy. 

Did  you  find  any  blood  in  the  vomit? — No. 

Did  you  notice  at  all  whether  she  had  any  signs  of  leaky  eyes,  or 
running  eyes,  or  anything  of  that  sort? — No,  she  had  not. 

Nothing  of  that  sort,  nor  any  rash? — No. 

When  you  spoke  just  now  about  the  will  I  think  you  also  said  this, 
if  the  things  in  the  will  were  properly  explained  to  her  she  was  in  a  con- 
dition to  understand  it? — Yes,  that  is  the  view  I  took. 

You  never  thought  her  mental  condition  was  very  strong? — I  never 
thought  she  was  very  good  mentally,  but  if  you  explained  matters  suffi- 
ciently she  could  understand  them. 

Now,  on  the  13th  there  was  again  difficulty  about  the  medicine,  was 
there  not? — No,  not  on  the  13th.  On  the  13th  I  gave  her  diarrhoea 
mixture  because  she  had  a  little  diarrhoea  come  on  again. 

The  diarrhoea  having  returned  you  were  bound  to  revert  to  the  bismuth 
mixture? — Well,  I  gave  her  a  different  mixture. 

Bismuth  and  chalk? — It  was  aromatic  chalk  mixture  containing  some 
bismuth,  and  that  was  only  to  be  given  after  each  motion — not  to  be 
continued. 

The  dose  of  bismuth  which  you  were  giving  to  her  on  the  13th  was  a 
fairly  stiff  dose? — A  ten-grain  dose.  That  is  not  a  stiff  dose.  You  can 
give  twenty-grain  doses. 

On  the  13th  did  you  realise  that  she  was  in  danger? — Yes. 

Although  you  did  not  expect  her  to  die  that  night,  were  you  surprised 
to  hear  that  she  was  dead  the  next  morning? — No. 

Her  pulse,  you  have  said,  was  weak.  Was  it  fairly  and  easily  com- 
pressible?— Yes,  it  was  weak — compressible. 

A  weak,  compressible  pulse — fast? — Yes. 

Thin  and  fast? — Yes,  it  was  not  very 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Fast — thin  and  weak? — The  pulse  was. 
By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — What  was  it  beating  at  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
do  you  remember? — I  do  not  quite  remember. 

Valentine's  meat  juice  you  had  ordered,  as  far  as  I  remember,  from 
the  4th?— Yes. 

Valentine's  meat  juice  is  a  concentrated  essence  of  beef  or  meat  of 
some  kind? — It  is  the  compressed  juice,  and  it  is  diluted  with  water. 

Now,  the  next  morning,  assuming  that  this  poor  lady  had  died  at 
€.30,  7  o'clock  would  be  as  early  as  you  would  reasonably  expect  anybody 

95 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  Henry  George  Sworn 

to  come  and  see  you  if  he  had  been  up  all  night? — Yes,  I  should  not  have 
thanked  him  to  come  before. 

He  told  you  Miss  Barrow  was  dead? — Yes. 

You  then  asked  the  questions.  Did  he  ask  for  the  certificate,  or 
did  you  give  it  to  him? — No,  I  gave  it  to  him. 

If  you  had  wanted  to  see  the  body,  or  if  you  had  in  your  discretion 
thought  it  necessary  to  see  the  body  before  granting  the  certificate,  do  you 
anticipate  there  would  be  the  smallest  difficulty  about  your  doing  so?— 
No,  there  would  not.  I  should  have  gone  and  seen  it. 

Did  you  as  a  medical  man,  having  regard  to  what  you  had  previously 
seen,  think  it  necessary  to  see  the  body  before  giving  the  certificate? — 
No,  I  did  not. 

Had  you  any  doubt  in  your  own  mind  at  that  time  that  what  you 
stated  on  the  certificate  was  correct — that  she  had  died  from  exhaustion 
brought  on  by  epidemic  diarrhoea? — I  stated  what  I  believed  to  be  true. 

There  was  a  great  deal  of  epidemic  diarrhoea  about  at  that  time,  was 
there  not? — Yes. 

In  epidemic  diarrhoea,  however  carefully  it  is  looked  after,  there  is 
always  a  danger  of  a  sudden  relapse? — Yes. 

And  if  there  is  a  sudden  relapse  in  epidemic  diarrhoea  which  has  been 
going  on  for  ten  or  twelve  days  would  you  expect  death  to  result  from 
heart  failure? — Yes. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  accompanied  by  a  comatose  or  unconscious 
state? — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNET-GEJSTERAL — When  you  left  this  lady  on 
the  morning  of  the  13th,  did  you  anticipate  that  she  would  die  within 
twenty-four  hours? — Certainly  not.  I  should  have  gone  back  later  on  in 
the  day  if  I  thought  there  was  immediate  danger,  but  heart  failure  is  a 
thing  that  comes  on  suddenly  in  these  cases.  If  I  had  gone  the  same 
evening  I  should  not  have  expected  it,  but  yet  it  might  have  happened. 

What  I  was  asking  is  this,  having  regard  to  the  condition  in  which 
you  found  her  with  regard  to  the  pulse,  had  you  any  reason  to  expect 
that  she  would  die  within  twenty-four  hours? — I  had  as  much  reason  to 
expect  that  as  in  any  other  case  that  dies.  She  was  not  in  what  I  should 
call  a  dangerous  condition.  There  are  many  cases  that  die  from  heart 
failure.  There  are  some  cases  in  which  you  can  say  how  long  the  person 
is  going  to  live.  I  have  known  a  person  to  be  told  there  is  no  danger 
and  to  die  an  hour  afterwards  from  heart  failure.  My  own  father  died 
in  that  way. 

I  am  not  disputing  that.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  this.  I  really 
want  to  understand  from  you  \vhether  you  thought  that  at  that  time  she 
was  in  such  a  dangerous  condition  that  she  might  die  within  the  twenty- 
four  hours? — She  might  have  died  five  minutes  after  I  left.  She  was  in 
that  condition  that  I  should  not  have  been  surprised  if  they  had  come 
back  ten  minutes  afterwards  and  said  she  Avas  dead. 

Surely  there  is  no  difficulty  in  answering  a  simple  question? — No,  I 
am  telling  you. 

But  apart  altogether  from  what  might  happen,  what  I  want  to  know 
is  what  your  expectation  was  as  a  medical  man  attending  a  patient  who 
had  been  under  your  observation  from  the  2nd  to  the  13th  September 
96 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dp.  Henry  George  Sworn 

when  you  left  her  on  the  morning  of  the  13th  September? — My  expecta- 
tion was  that  she  might  recover — that  she  was  in  about  the  same  con- 
dition, but  I  was  not  surprised  that  she  died  the  next  day  from  heart 
failure. 

Do  you  think  she  was  in  a  critical  condition? — I  thought  she  was  in 
a  critical  condition  all  along. 

I  must  ask  you  this.  You  have  told  us  you.  thought  she  was  in  a 
little  danger,  but  not  critical? — Yes. 

Was  that  correct? — Yes. 

On  the  13th  September? — She  was  in  danger  all  along,  that  is  what 
I  told  you.  She  might  have  died  from  heart  failure  days  before. 

But  is  this  correct — what  you  swore  in  answer  to  my  friend  this 
morning?  This  is  on  the  13th,  "  I  thought  she  was  in  a  little  danger, 
but  not  critical"? — Yes,  she  was  in  a  little  danger,  and  she  was  not 
critical.  It  depends  upon  what  you  call  critical. 

I  am  asking  what  you  say? — I  say  she  was  in  a  little  danger,  but  not 
critical. 

One  last  question  upon  this.  I  only  want  to  know,  as  a  medical  man 
if  you  found  her  in  a  little  danger,  and  that  her  condition  was  not  critical, 
would  you  expect  her  to  die  within  twenty-four  hours? — How  should  I 
expect  her  to  die?  I  know  that  she  is  likely  to  die.  I  cannot  expect 
her  to  die  unless  I  can  say  exactly  how  long  the  case  is  going  to  last.  Her 
case  was  not  a  hopeless  case.  You  are  asking  me  questions  that  are 
impossible  to  answer  in  that  way. 

I  am  only  asking  you  to  give  us  what  your  view  is? — I  am  giving  my 
view — that  she  was  not  in  a  critical  condition — she  might  have  died  five 
minutes  after  I  left  her,  she  might  have  been  alive  now.  I  cannot  say 
any  more  than  that. 

Have  you  any  part  of  the  carbonate  of  bismuth  left  which  you  had 
then? — No. 

Have  you  any  carbonate  of  bismuth  in  stock? — Plenty. 

Can  you  tell  us  when  the  stock  was  exhausted  from  which  you  gave 
her  the  medicine  in -September? — I  cannot.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  my 
medicines.  They  are  ordered  by  my  partner,  and  they  are  arranged  by  the 
dispenser.  I  never  see  the  medicines. 

Then  you  cannot  help  us? — I  cannot  tell  you,  but  I  know  the  stock 
must  be  out  by  this  time  that  was  being  used  then. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Is  liability  to  heart  failure  a  well-known 
danger  of  epidemic  diarrhoea? — Yes. 

And  therefore  the  liability  is  greater  the  longer  the  epidemic  diarrhoea 
has  gone  on? — Certainly. 

And  the  longer  it  has  gone  on  the  less  the  probability  of  the  patient 
resisting  the  attack  if  it  comes  on? — Yes. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Does  vomiting  generally  attend  epidemic 
diarrhoea? — It  does.  Epidemic  diarrhoea  used  to  be  called  English 
cholera  years  ago,  and  one  of  the  most  frequent  symptoms  is  persistent 
vomiting. 

Anjd  you  saw  some  of  the  vomit,  did  you? — Yes.  It  was  a  brownish 
mucus — a  yellowish  mucus. 

<:  97 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  John  Frederick  Paul 

Dr.  JOHN  FREDERICK  PAUL,  recalled,  further  examined  by  the  ATTORNET- 
GENERAL — There  was  no  arsenic  whatever  in  any  of  the  medicines  I  gave 
to  Miss  Barrow. 

ALFRED  KING,  examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  am  superintendent  and  registrar 
of  the  Metropolitan  Borough  of  Islington  Cemetery.  Eliza  Mary  Barrow, 
aged  49,  was  buried  at  that  cemetery  on  16th  September,  1911.  I  produce 
certificate  of  her  death.  Her  address  was  given  as  63  Tollington  Park, 
and  the  date  of  death  14th  September,  1911.  She  was  buried  in  grave- 
No.  19,453,  section  Q — that  is  what  we  call  a  common  grave.  I  produce 
the  order  for  exhumation  of  the  body  signed  and  sealed  by  the  coroner, 
Dr.  George  Cohen,  and  dated  llth  November,  1911,  exhibit  138.  The 
body  was  exhumed  on  14th  November,  1911,  and  it  was  re-buried  in 
another  grave  by  order  of  the  coroner  on  22nd  December,  1911. 

WILLIAM  ALEXANDER  FRASER,  examined  by  Mr.  R.  D.  MUIR — I  am  the 
coroner's  officer  for  Hornsey  and  Friern  Barnet.  I  was  present  at  the 
Coroner's  Court  at  the  inquest  on  the  body  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  That 
Court  was  opened  on  23rd  November,  and  concluded  on  14th  December. 
I  saw  the  coroner  taking  the  depositions  of  the  witnesses,  including  the 
two  prisoners.  I  saw  the  prisoners  sign  their  depositions  taken  on  23rd 
November.  These  depositions  are  as  follows.  (Depositions  read.) 

Chief  Inspector  ALFRED  WARD,  recalled,  further  examined  by  Mr. 
R.  D.  MUIR — I  was  present  at  the  Police  Court  when  Dr.  Cohen  gave 
evidence,  first  on  9th  January,  and  afterwards  on  26th  January.  On 
9th  January  the  male  prisoner  only  was  in  custody ;  on  26th  January 
both  prisoners  were  in  custody,  and  both  had  an  opportunity  of  cross- 
examining  the  coroner.  I  saw  the  coroner  sign  his  depositions. 
(Depositions  read.) 

Examination  continued — About  7  p.m.  on  4th  December  I  saw  the 
male  prisoner  out  of  doors  at  Tollington  Park.  I  told  him  I  was  a  police 
officer,  and  was  to  arrest  him  for  the  wilful  murder  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow 
by  administering  poison — arsenic.  He  said,  "  Absurd.  What  a  terrible 
charge — wilful  murder.  It  is  the  first  of  our  family  that  has  ever  been 
accused  of  such  a  crime.  Are  you  going  to  arrest  my  wife  as  well?  If 
not,  I  would  like  you  to  give  her  a  message  for  me.  Have  they  found 
arsenic  in  her  body  1  She  has  not  done  this  herself  ?  It  was  not  carbolic 
acid,  was  it,  as  there  was  some  in  her  room,  and  Sanitas  is  not  poison, 
is  it?"  He  repeated  the  word  "  Murder  "  several  times  on  the  way  to 
the  station.  When  at  the  station  at  Hornsey  Road  he  was  charged,  and 
when  the  charge  was  read  over  he  made  no  reply.  I  searched  the  nouse 
at  63  Tollington  Park  the  same  day,  and  in  a  trunk  in  the  top  bedroom 
that  had  been  occupied  by  the  dead  woman  I  found  the  cash  box,  exhibit 
2.  The  trunk  was  locked.  I  got  the  keys  from  a  safe  in  the  prisoner's 
bedroom.  The  female  prisoner  was  present,  and  she  told  me  that  it  was 
the  late  Miss  Barrow's  trunk  and  her  belongings.  I  found  the  pass-book, 
exhibit  17,  and  also  a  paper  bag,  exhibit  20,  which  has  "  £20  gold  " 
written  in  ink  on  the  front,  and  "  Gold  £19  "  in  indelible  pencil  on  the 
back.  I  should  say  that  the  pencil  handwriting  is  the  male  prisoner's. 
98 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Alfred  Ward 

There  were  nineteen  sovereigns  in  the  bag.  I  found  it  in  the  safe  in 
the  prisoner's  bedroom,  which  is  on  the  first  floor.  I  have  the  sovereigns 
in  my  custody,  and  can  send  for  them  if  they  are  required.  In  the  same 
safe  I  found  a  ring,  exhibit  21;  exhibit  22,  a  gold  chain;  and  exhibit 
23,  another  gold  chain  and  pendant.  Mrs.  Seddon  was  present.  The  chain 
was  attached  to  it  as  it  is  now.  I  asked  Mrs.  Seddon  whose  watch  it  was, 
and  she  said,  "  It  is  mine."  I  asked  her  where  she  got  it,  and  she  said, 
"  It  was  a  present  to  me."  I  said,  "  Is  it  not  Miss  Barrow's?  "  and  she 
said,  "  Yes."  In  the  safe  in  the  office  in  the  basement  I  found  a  Post 
Office  Savings  Bank  book,  exhibit  37,  made  out  in  the  name  of  Mr.  F.  H. 
Seddon,  63  Tollington  Park.  Under  date  15th  September,  1911,  I  find 
an  entry  of  £30  deposit  paid  in.  I  also  found  in  the  office  safe  the 
bank  pass-book,  exhibit  34.  In  the  secretaire  in  the  front  room  on  the 
ground  floor  I  found  a  copy  of  the  will,  exhibit  38.  In  the  safe  in  the 
front  bedroom  I  found  an  envelope  containing  some  documents,  of  which 
exhibit  39  is  one.  The  first  entry  on  that  document  is  "  £10  cash  found 
at  Miss  Barrow's  death,"  then  "  Statement  of  how  utilised,"*  and  it  is 
signed  "  F.  H.  Seddon."  The  handwriting  is  all  that  of  the  male 
prisoner.  In  the  same  envelope  I  found  a  conveyance  of  a  grave  at 
Highgate  Cemetery  to  Eliza  Jane  Barrow,  exhibit  40,  dated  9th  February, 
1874,  and  attached  to  that  a  slip  of  paper  with  the  words,  "  Last  interment, 
16th  December,  1876.  Eliza  Jane  Barrow."  In  the  same  envelope  there 
was  a  certificate  of  Miss  Barrow's  death,  exhibit  41,  and  a  copy  of  a  letter 
dated  21st  September,  "  To  the  relatives  of  the  late  Miss  Eliza  Mary 
Barrow,"  exhibit  42,  being  the  same  as  exhibit  3.  There  were  other 
documents  in  the  same  envelope,  which  included  Miss  Barrow's  rent  book 
and  the  lease  of  the  Buck's  Head.  I  also  found  an  envelope  containing 
some  hair.  It  had  writing  on  it  when  I  found  it — the  male  prisoner's 
handwriting,  I  should  think — "  Miss  Barrow's  hair,  for  Hilda  and  Ernest 
Grant,"  and  then  on  the  back,  "  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  died  14th  September, 
1911."  I  handed  that  envelope  to  Sergeant  Cooper.  I  afterwards  saw 
Dr.  Wilcox  produce  it  when  he  was  giving  evidence.  I  saw  the  female 
prisoner  at  5  p.m.  on  15th  January  at  63  Tollington  Park.  I  asked  her 
if  she  knew  me,  and  she  said  "  Yes."  I  then  told  her  that  I  was  going 
to  arrest  her  for  being  concerned  in  the  wilful  murder  of  Miss  Barrow 
by  administering  poison,  and  she  said,  "  Very  well."  I  took  her  to 
the  police  station,  and  she  was  then  charged,  but  made  no  reply  whatever. 
(Shown  exhibit  121) — That  is  a  gold  ring  which  I  found  in  the  safe  in 
the  bedroom  on  the  first  floor  on  4th  December.  (Shown  exhibit  123) — 
That  is  a  neck  chain  with  a  pendant  which  was  found  in  the  secretaire 
in  the  dining-room  on  the  first  floor.  I  have  examined  the  inventory  of 
Miss  Barrow's  effects,  exhibit  32.  Neither  the  chain  and  the  pendant  nor 
the  chain  attached  to  the  watch  was  included  in  that  inventory. 

None  of  these  things  are  in  the  inventory? — None  of  these  articles 
are  shown  in  the  inventory.  On  1st  February  I  caused  notice  to  be 
served  upon  Mr.  Thorley  to  attend  at  the  Police  Court,  and  he  attended 
next  day  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning.  I  saw  him  myself. 

Now,  just  tell  us  what  happened  with  regard  to  the  identification  of 

*  See  Appendix  G. 

99 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Alfred  Ward 


Maggie  Seddon? — Maggie  Seddon,  with  a  large  number  of  males  and 
females,  was  sent  into  the  waiting  room,  and  upon  the  arrival  of  Mr. 
Thorley  he  was  asked  to  go  into  the  room  to  see  if  he  could  identify  any 
one  there,  as  the  person  who  purchased  from  him  certain  fly-papers  on 
26th  August  last.  He  entered  the  room  alone,  walked  round  the  room, 
came  out,  and  pointed  Maggie  Seddon  out  to  me  as  the  girl  who  had 
purchased  from  him  on  that  particular  day. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — You  have  said  that  you  had 
accused  Seddon  of  causing  the  wilful  murder  of  Miss  Barrow  by  adminis- 
tering arsenic? — Certainly,  sir. 

Then  he  asked  a  question,  ' '  Have  you  found  arsenic  in  the  body  ' '  ? — 
Yes. 

Then  was  the  next  thing  a  question,  "  She  has  not  done  it  herself," 
negatively  or  not? — No,  he  said  them  all  one  after  another.  I  asked 
him  no  question.  I  did  not  speak  to  him  until  I  got  to  the  station. 

Now,  Mr.  Thorley  has  told  us  that  the  police  had  been  to  him  several 
times  in  December  and  January  about  this  matter? — Yes. 

I  understand  he  went  down  on  2nd  February  in  the  morning,  went 
into  a  room  where  there  were  about  twenty  people? — There  were  more 
than  that. 

And  he  then  came  out,  and  told  you  that  he  had  identified  a  certain 
girl? — He  pointed  Maggie  Seddon  out  to  me. 

After  he  had  come  out? — No,  he  came  to  the  door  and  pointed  the 
girl  out.  He  said,  "  This  is  the  girl  who  purchased  the  fly-papers  from 
me." 

You  have  been  in  Court — you  have  heard  Mr.  Thorley's  evidence  that 
there  was  one  other  girl  there  with  her  hair  down  her  back? — There  were 
several  more — when  I  say  several  I  will  say  two  or  three. 

You  know  Miss  Barrow's  handwriting,  do  you  not,  by  this  time? — I 
only  know  what  I  have  been  told. 

You  have  seen  several  specimens  of  her  handwriting.  There  are 
certain  things  which  are  admitted  to  be  in  her  handwriting — letters  written 
to  the  solicitors  and  that  sort  of  thing? — Yes. 

Are  these  signatures,  so  far  as  you  can  say,  the  signatures  of  Miss 
Barrow?  (Documents  handed  to  witness) — Yes,  they  are  similar,  of  course. 

You  cannot  say  more? — I  do  not  know  that  any  one  has  seen  her  sign. 

Let  me  have  them  back — I  will  get  them  probably  from  some  one. 
My  lord,  I  understand  from  the  Attorney-General  that  there  is  no  dispute 
that  there  was,  in  fact,  a  payment  in  respect  of  both  of  these  transfers, 
the  transfer  of  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  transfer  of  the  Stock? 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCK>ILL — At  the  present  time  the  evidence  is  that  every- 
thing is  in  order,  and  the  learned  Attorney-General  very  candidly  says,  "  I 
am  not  charging  in  this  case  a  fraudulent  transaction  from  a  commercial 
point  of  view." 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Have  you  seen  the  rent  book? — Yes. 

I  see  that  from  25th  July  to  26th  December  apparently  there  appears 
to  be  a  payment  of  12s.  a  week  for  rent? — Yes. 

After  that  date  all  the  entries  of  each  week  are  entered  up  as  clear? — 
Yes. 

That  is  to  say,  no  payment? — Yes. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 


Alfied  Ward 


Did  you  find  that  book  at  Tollington  Park  ? — Yes,  amongst  the  effects. 
That  is  the  document  you  handed  me — that  is  the  Post  Office  book  1 — 

Yes. 

The  Court  adjourned. 


Fourth   Day— Thursday,  7th  March,   1912. 

The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

CHARLES  COOPER,  examined  by  Mr.  MTJIR — I  am  a  detective-sergeant 
in  New  Scotland  Yard.  I  was  present  at  the  male  prisoner's  arrest.  On 
llth  December  I  took  an  envelope,  exhibit  135,  containing  some  hair  which 
I  had  received  from  Chief  Inspector  Ward  to  Dr.  Willoox.  On  30th 
December  I  went  to  63  Tollington  Park  and  took  away  the  till,  which  is 
exhibit  28,  from  the  place  which  is  marked  on  the  plan,  exhibit  27. 

Cross-examined  Mr.  MARSHALL  HAUL — At  the  station  the  male  prisoner 
said,  "  My  wife  will  be  in  a  terrible  state,"  or  something  of  that  sort,  and 
he  asked  me  to  get  Mrs.  Bromwich  to  assist  her. 

WILLIAM  HATMAN,  examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  am  a  detective-sergeant 
in  New  Scotland  Yard.  I  assisted  in  the  arrest  of  the  male  prisoner.  I 
stopped  him  in  Tollington  Park,  and  said  to  him,  "  Mr.  Seddon,  Chief 
Inspector  Ward  wants  to  see  you."  He  said,  "  May  I  go  home  first?  " 
but  I  did  not  answer  him.  Mr.  Ward  came  up  almost  immediately,  and 
I  heard  what  was  said  between  him  and  the  prisoner. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — He  said  "  Murder  "  several 
times,  and  then  "  Poisoning  by  arsenic — what  a  charge."  Mr.  Ward 
spoke  to  him  the  moment  he  came  up. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — On  8th  December  I  purchased  one  packet 
containing  six  fly-papers  from  Mr.  Price,  chemist,  103  Tollington  Road, 
and  on  1 1th  December  I  handed  these  over  to  Dr.  Willcox  at  St.  Mary's 
Hospital.  I  purchased  a  packet  of  fly-papers  on  29th  February  from 
Messrs.  Spinks,  chemists,  27  Tottenham  Court  Road,  and  also  from  Dodds' 
Drug  Stores,  70  Tottenham  Court  Road,  and  from  Needhams,  Limited, 
chemists,  297  Edgware  Road.  I  took  these  packets  to  Dr.  Willcox  at  St. 
Mary's  Hospital.  Last  night  I  got  from  Dr.  Sworn's  surgery  two  ounces 
of  bismuth  carbonate,  which  I  handed  over  to  Dr.  Willcox.  I  also  got 
two  ounces  from  Messrs.  Willows,  Francis,  Butler  <fe  Thompson,  druggists, 
40  Aldersgate  Street,  which  I  handed  over  to  Dr.  Willcox.  I  was  informed 
that  these  were  the  persons  who  supplied  Dr.  Sworn  with  his  drugs. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — It  was  on  8th  December  that  I  first  bought 
some  fly-papers.  The  male  prisoner  was  arrested  on  4th  December. 

Dr.  BERNARD  HENRY  SPILSBURT,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — 
I  am  a  Bachelor  of  Medicine  and  a  Bachelor  of  Surgery,  and  I  am  a 
pathologist  at  St.  Mary's  Hospital.  In  November  of  last  year  I  made  a 
post-mortem  examination  of  the  body  of  a  woman  who  was  identified  as 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury 

Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  I  was  present  when  the  body  was  identified  by 
Albert  Edward  Vonderahe  and  Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — There  is  no  suggestion  here  that  the  body  is  not 
the  body,  and  there  is  no  suggestion  here  that  any  arsenic  came  from  any 
clothing,  so  all  these  details  may  be  disposed  of. 

Examination  continued — With  the  exception  of  the  stomach  and 
intestines,  I  found  no  disease  in  any  of  the  organs  sufficient  to  account  for 
death.  The  stomach  was  a  little  dilated,  and  a  black  substance  was 
present  on  its  inner  surface.  In  the  upper  part  of  the  small  intestine 
the  inner  surface  was  red.  The  body  was  very  well  preserved,  internally 
and  externally,  apart  from  some  post-mortem  staining  externally.  Taking 
into  account  that  the  death  took  place  in  September,  1911,  the  state  of 
preservation  in  which  I  found  the  body  was  very  abnormal.  I  was  not 
able  to  account  for  it  at  the  time  the  post-mortem  examination  was  made, 
but  since  the  analysis  which  has  been  made  by  Dr.  Willcox  I  think  the 
preservation  was  due  to  the  presence  of  arsenic  in  the  body.  I  include 
the  stomach  with  the  rest  of  the  body,  and  also  the  skin,  bones,  and  the 
hair.  On  an  external  examination  I  found  no  evidence  of  shingles  or 
pigmentation  of  the  skin,  but  the  skin  had  a  green  colour,  which  I  thought 
was  due  to  post-mortem  discolouration.  The  skin  of  the  face  was  brown 
and  shrivelled.  By  "pigmentation  "  of  the  skin  I  mean  that  the  skin  is 
of  an  unusual  colour,  generally  either  brown  or  black,  and  that  would  be 
the  result  sometimes  of  chronic  arsenical  poisoning.  There  was  no 
thickening  of  the  skin  on  the  palms  of  the  hands  or  on  the  soles  of  the 
feet.  There  was  no  thickening  in  the  nails  of  the  fingers  or  of  the  toes, 
nor  was  there  any  other  change  in  the  nails  of  the  fingers  or  the  toes. 
There  was  nothing  abnormal  about  the  appearance  of  the  hair.  I  was 
present  during  some  of  the  tests  made  by  Dr.  Willcox  for  arsenic.  From 
what  I  saw  of  the  results  of  these  tests  my  opinion  is  that  the  death  was 
the  result  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning — poisoning  by  one  or  more  large 
doses  of  arsenic,  as  distinguished  from  poisoning  by  small  doses  of  arsenic 
over  a  long  period  of  time.  By  a  "  large  dose  "  I  mean  a  poisonous  dose, 
which  would  certainly  be  two  grains,  and  less  than  that  would  give  rise  to 
symptoms  of  poisoning.  Two  grains  in  one  dose  might  be  sufficient  to 
kill  an  adult  person.  I  think  that  two  or  three  doses  of  two  grains  or 
upwards  within  a  short  period  of  time  would  be  sufficient  to  kill  an  adult 
person. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  DUNSTAN — In  making  my  post-mortem  ex- 
amination I  found  that  the  height  of  the  body  was  5  feet  4  inches.  The 
body  was  well  nourished.  The  average  weight  for  a  person  aged  forty- 
nine  of  a  height  of  5  feet  4  inches  would  be  somewhere  between  8£  and 
10J  stones,  and  if  she  was  a  well-nourished  and  plump  woman  she  might 
be  well  over  the  average  weight.  On  examining  the  internal  organs  I 
found  no  evidence  of  disease  at  all,  except  in  the  stomach  and  intestines. 
I  found  a  slight  reddening  of  the  lining  of  the  bowel.  We  could  not  see 
the  mucous  membrane  of  the  stomach  as  it  was  covered  with  the  black 
substance  I  have  already  mentioned.  The  first  part  of  the  small  intestine, 
the  duodenum,  was  reddened  throughout,  and  the  next  part,  the  jejunum, 
was  slightly  reddened.  Beyond  that  the  inner  surface  showed  no 
reddening. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

DP.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury 

Apart  from  that  reddening,  there  was  no  sign  of  any  disease  at  all? — 
None  at  all. 

And  death  might  have  been  due  to  syncope  or  heart  failure? — Cer- 
tainly, apart  from  the  reddening,  so  far  as  I  could  see. 

The  reddening  would  be  equally  consistent  with  death  from  epidemic 
diarrhoea  of  ordinary  duration? — Yes,  it  would. 

Would  it  be  consistent  with  death  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  extending 
over  some  ten  or  twelve  days  ? — Yes,  it  would. 

The  absence  of  any  disease  in  the  other  organs  would  be  equally  con- 
sistent with  death  from  epidemic  diarrhoea? — Certainly. 

Apart  from  Dr.  Willcox 's  report  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  Dr. 
Sworn's  death  certificate  in  this  case  from  what  you  saw  at  the  post-mortem? 
— That  is  so,  with  the  one  exception  of  the  condition  of  the  preservation 
of  the  body. 

The  preservation  of  the  body  varies  greatly? — Oh,  yes. 

I  believe  it  is  a  fact  that  amongst  the  Styrian  peasants  arsenic  is 
taken  considerably? — Yes. 

You  know  that  as  a  scientific  fact? — Yes. 

And  those  arsenic  eaters  die  of  other  diseases  than  arsenical  poisoning  1 
— That  is  so. 

The  preservation  of  the  bodies  of  Styrians  is  well  marked  also? — Yes, 
I  have  heard  that. 

You  have  told  us  that  there  was  no  sign  of  any  skin  rash  ? — Yes. 

You  would  have  expected  some  skin  rash  had  arsenic  been  given  from 
1st  September? — Not  necessarily. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Where  would  you  find  the  rash? — The  rash 
might  appear  over  any  part  of  the  body. 

Suppose  this  woman  took  small  doses  of  arsenic,  for  example — I  am 
not  suggesting  it  is  the  fact — from  the  2nd  September  to  the  llth,  where 
would  you  expect  to  find  the  rash? — She  might  have  the  rash  over  the 
upper  part  of  the  body,  and  she  might  have  the  rash  over  the  limbs;  it 
might  appear  almost  anywhere. 

By  Mr.  DUNSTAN — Would  it  tend  to  disappear  between  the  date  of  the 
death  and  your  examination? — Yes. 

Would  the  eyes  become  affected  soon  with  the  administration  of 
arsenic  in  fairly  large  doses? — No,  I  think  not — not  in  fairly  large  doses. 

Would  you  give  your  opinion  as  to  how  soon  the  eyes  would  be  affected 
with  a  largish  dose? — I  think  probably  not  at  all. 

I  think  Dr.  Willcox  defined  this  dose  as  "  a  moderately  large  fatal 
dose"?— Yes. 

Dr.  Willcox  defined  it  as  five  grains  and  upwards? — Yes. 

It  would  be  a  large  dose? — It  would  be  a  moderately  large  dose — a 
moderately  large  fatal  dose. 

At  what  time  would  a  dose  of  that  class  prove  fatal? — It  would  not 
be  likely  to  prove  fatal — a  single  dose,  of  course — in  less  than  three  days 
probably,  and  it  might  be  longer. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Now,  would  you  give  us  a  little  history  of 
what  you  would  expect  to  take  place  in  three  days.  First  of  all,  what 
would  happen  on  the  first  one,  and  then  on  the  second  one,  and  then  on 
the  third  day,  and  the  day  of  the  death.  What  would  you  expect  to  find 

103 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spllsbury 

•with  such  a  dose  on  the  third  day? — The  patient  would  develop  symptoms 
probably  between  an  hour  or  two  hours. 

That  would  be  the  first  day? — That  would  be  the  first  day. 

Go  on,  please? — The  symptoms  would  be  nausea,  followed  by  vomiting 
and  a  pain  in  the  stomach. 

Go  on,  please.  Give  us  from  the  first  day  to  the  third? — In  a  few 
hours  afterwards  diarrhoea  would  develop.  This  would  continue  in  a 
severe  form  almost  up  to  the  time  of  the  death,  and  the  patient  would 
become  collapsed,  and  would  develop  great  thirst. 

On  the  first  day  there  would  be  symptoms  in  an  hour  or  two? — Yes. 

Nausea  would  then  come,  followed  by  vomiting,  followed  by  pain  in 
the  stomach? — Together  with  pain  in  the  stomach;  the  two  would  come 
at  the  same  time. 

A  few  hours  afterwards  diarrhoea  would  develop.  This  would  continue 
in  a  severe  form  almost  up  to  the  time  of  death,  and  the  patient  would 
become  collapsed,  and  would  develop  a  great  thirst? — Yes. 

And  then? — And  then  death  would  ensue. 

"  On  the  third  day  I  should  expect  death  might  ensue  "  ? — It  might 
ensue  on  the  third  day. 

By  Mr.  DUNSTAN — I  believe  epidemic  diarrhoea  is  very  prevalent  in 
the  summer? — Yes,  that  is  so. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — And  sometimes  it  is  very  painful? — 
Extremely. 

Frequently  ? — Yes. 

And  ignorant  people  call  it  "  English  cholera  "  ? — Yes. 

By  Mr.  DUNSTAN — In  fact,  it  was  prevalent  last  summer? — That 
is  so. 

And  the  symptoms  would  be  those  described  by  Dr.  Sworn? — Yes, 
they  would. 

And  the  final  cause  of  death  would  be  heart  failure? — Yes. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — And  those  would  also  l)e  the 
symptoms  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning? — That  is  so. 

And  in  the  result  would  death  ensue  from  heart  failure? — Yes,  it 
would. 

Just  the  same  for  acute  arsenical  poisoning  as  it  would  for  epidemic 
diarrhosa  ? — Yes. 

Are  the  symptoms  which  we  have  heard  described  by  Dr.  Sworn — the 
vomiting,  the  pain  in  the  stomach,  and  diarrhoea,  and  so  forth — all  con- 
sistent with  a  case  of  arsenical  poisoning  from  what  you  describe  as  "  large 
doses"?— Yes. 

And,  assuming  a  doctor  to  be  called  in  who  neither  knew  nor  suspected 
arsenical  poisoning,  how  would  he  diagnose  the  illness? — In  all  probability 
as  a  case  of  epidemic  diarrhoea. 

In  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning,  would  there  be  any  external 
indication  that  arsenic  had  been  administered  in  fairly  large  doses? — No, 
I  think  none  at  all. 

Supposing  that  you  suspected  arsenical  poisoning  in  a  case  to  which 
you  were  called  in,  with  the  symptoms  which  you  have  described,  how 
would  you  then  ascertain  whether  or  not  a  large  dose,  or  a  fairly  large 
104 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury 

dose,  of  arsenic  had  been  given? — Do  you  mean  ascertain  during  life  or 
after  death? 

I  mean  during  life,  what  could  you  ascertain? — Only  by  an  analysis 
of  what  was  vomited  or  of  the  other  excreta. 

Then  you  would  have  to  analyse  some  excreta  in  order  to  detect  the 
arsenic? — Yes,  that  is  so. 

You  were  asked  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Dunstan,  whether  the  eyes  became 
affected  soon.  When  would  you  expect,  and  under  what  circumstances 
would  you  expect,  the  eyes  to  become  affected  by  arsenical  poisoning? — I 
should  only  expect  them  to  be  affected  when  the  patient  had  been  taking 
arsenic  for  some  little  time — a  matter  of  weeks — several  weeks  or  months. 

Supposing  a  patient  had  been  taking  arsenic  for  several  weeks  or 
months,  would  that  be  a  case  of  chronic  arsenical  poisoning? — Yes,  it 
would. 

And  in  those  cases  you  would  get  a  running  from  the  eyes? — Yes, 
the  symptoms  of  a  cold. 

Would  those  symptoms  be  regarded  chronic  arsenical  poisoning,  or 
would  they  also  apply  to  the  acute  case? — They  would  be  confined  to  the 
chronic  type. 

So  you  would  distinguish  a  chronic  case  by  the  running  of  the  eyes? 
— I  think  so,  certainly. 

In  the  case  of  chronic  arsenical  poisoning  would  you  expect  to  find 
a  rash  such  as  you  have  described  ? — It  is  possible  that  a  rash  might  develop, 
but  I  should  hardly  expect  it. 

In  the  case  of  chronic  arsenical  poisoning? — I  understood  you  to  say 
acute. 

No,  I  said  chronic? — I  am  afraid  I  misunderstood  you. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — In  an  acute  case  it  is  possible,  but  not 
likely,  that  the  rash  would  appear? — Yes,  it  is  possible,  but  not  likely. 

By  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Would  you  tell  my  lord  as  regards  a  chronic 
case? — In  a  chronic  case  it  would  be  usual  to  see  rashes  in  the  skin. 

What  other  indications  would  you  expect  in  a  case  of  chronic  arsenical 
poisoning  which  you  would  not  find  in  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning? 
— There  would  be  thickening  of  the  skin  in  the  palms  of  the  hands  and 
in  the  soles  of  the  feet.  There  would  be  thickening  of  the  nails  and  a 
skin  eruption  known  as  shingles.  The  hair  would  probably  fall  out  also. 
Then  the  patient  might  develop  symptoms  of  nervous  disease,  such  as 
pains  in  the  limbs  and  a  muscular  weakness. 

Would  there  be  anything  on  internal  examination  which  would  indicate 
chronic  arsenical  poisoning  as  distinguished  from  acute  arsenical  poisoning? 
— There  might  be.  Of  course,  now  you  mean  a  post-mortem  examination, 
do  you  not? 

Certainly? — There  might  be  extreme  fatty  degeneration  of  the  liver  or 
of  the  heart  walls. 

On  your  internal  examination  of  this  body  did  you  find  either  of 
those? — No,  I  did  not. 

Assuming  the  symptoms  which  Dr.  Sworn  has  told  us,  and  the  patient 
died  during  the  heat  of  summer,  about  September,  1911,  was  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  body  which  you  saw  more  consistent  with  epidemic  diarrhoea 
or  with  acute  arsenic  poisoning? — It  was  more  consistent  with  acute 
arsenical  poisoning. 

105 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury 

What  would  you  expect  to  find  in  the  case  of  a  patient  who  had  died 
two  months  before,  during  that  period  of  the  heat,  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  1 
— I  should  expect  to  find  advanced  putrefaction. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Do  we  gather  from  that  that  arsenic  is  a 
preservative? — Yes,  it  is  so;  it  frequently  acts  as  a  preservative  of  any  part 
of  the  body  to  which  it  gains  access. 

By  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Will  you  tell  us  what  quantity  of  arsenic 
was  found  in  the  stomach  and  intestines? — About  three-quarters  of  a  grain. 

Leaving  out  all  the  other  parts  of  the  body,  supposing  you  found 
three-quarters  of  a  grain  in  the  stomach  and  the  intestines,  would  that 
indicate  to  you  whether  there  had  been  that  or  more  arsenic  taken? — Yes, 
it  would  certainly  indicate  that  more  had  been  taken. 

Why? — Because  some  of  the  poison  would  certainly  have  been  vomited 
again. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Would  none  have  passed  off  in  the  water? 
— Yes,  I  was  going  to  say  that;  some  might  be  in  the  urine,  some  certainly 
would  be  vomited,  and,  of  course,  in  the  excreta  as  well. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Would  it  be  a  likely  thing  for  it  to  pass 
in  the  excreta? — Not  unless  extremely  large  doses  had  been  taken.  I  wish 
to  add  that  I  am  leaving  out  of  account  the  possible  absorption  into  the 
body  of  the  arsenic. 

What  I  really  want  to  get  at  is  this.  Suppose  what  we  will  call  a 
moderately  large  dose  of  arsenic  had  been  given  to  the  patient,  would  the 
patient  in  the  ordinary  course  retain  the  whole,  or  can  you  give  us  any  idea 
what  portion  of  it  you  would  expect  to  remain  in  the  body  and  what 
portion  would  pass  into  the  urine  or  vomit  or  excreta ;  I  only  want  a 
general  idea? — It  would  have  to  be  very  general,  because  they  vary  very 
much  in  different  cases. 

Yes,  quite? — But  a  large  part  might  be  rejected  by  vomiting. 

Or? — Well,  it  is  so  general  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  say. 

You  said  that  if  an  extremely  large  dose  had  been  given  some  of  it 
would  pass  in  the  excreta;  is  that  right? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

Must  it  be  an  extremely  large  dose  for  it  to  pass  in  the  excreta? — Yes, 
I  should  think  so,  to  pass  in  any  amount  from  the  excreta.  There  might 
be  traces  after  any  case  of  arsenical  poisoning. 

Have  you  had  very  much  experience  in  post-mortem  examinations? — 
I  have. 

And  have  you  had  post-mortem  cases  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning 
before  this? — Yes,  I  have. 

And,  of  course,  you  are  familiar  with  the  works  upon  this? — Oh,  yes, 
of  course. 

In  an  ordinary  case,  speaking  of  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning, 
would  you  expect  to  find  more  or  less  reddening  than  you  find  in  this  case 
of  reddening  in  the  intestines? — No,  I  think 

Taking  into  account,  of  course,  the  period  which  had  elapsed! — No, 
quite  so;  taking  that  into  account  I  should  not. 

Taking  the  two  months  which  had  elapsed  into  account,  you  would 
not  expect  to  find  more  reddening  than  you  did  find  in  this  in  any  case  of 
arsenical  poisoning? — That  is  so,  yes. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — The  expression  has 
1 06 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury 

been  used  by  my  learned  friend,  the  Attorney-General,  "  chronic  arsenical 
poisoning."  There  is  such  a  thing  as  chronic  arsenical  taking,  which 
would  not  amount  to  chronic  arsenical  poisoning? — Yes,  that  might  be  so; 
we  have  had  a  case  quoted,  of  course. 

At  the  ordinary  druggist's  shop  you  can  buy  one-twentieth  or  one- 
fiftieth  of  a  grain  of  arsenic  in  bottles  prepared  by  Burroughs  &  Well- 
come— you  know  that? — Yea. 

Things  put  up  in  an  ordinary  tabloid  form,  containing  one-twentieth 
or  one-fiftieth  of  a  grain? — Yes. 

Taking  one-twentieth  or  one-fiftieth  of  a  grain  of  arsenic  for  a 
period  of  time  would  not  lead  necessarily  to  chronic  arsenical  poisoning  f 
— No,  not  unless  symptoms  developed. 

It  would  not  develop  any  symptoms? — It  might  not  develop  any 
symptoms. 

Not  unless  symptoms  of  poisoning  developed? — That  is  so. 

That  is  to  say,  the  taking  of  what  are  known  as  medicinal  doses  for 
a  long  period  of  time  would  not  necessarily  develop  symptoms  of  arsenical 
poisoning? — Yes,  that  is  so. 

The  elimination  of  urine,  of  course,  is  considerable,  is  it  not? — Yea, 
it  is. 

In  the  post-mortem  examination  that  you  made  the  bladder  was 
naturally  empty  of  urine? — Yes,  it  was. 

But  there  was  at  the  bottom  of  the  bladder  a  deposit  of  some  sort. 
Did  you  notice  it? — I  do  not  think  I  recall  it.  I  am  afraid  my  only  note 
is  that  the  bladder  was  empty. 

You  did  not  notice  whether  there  was  in  the  bladder  a  deposit — the 
result  of  the  evaporation,  of  course,  of  the  urine — there  may  have  been? 
— No,  I  did  not.  I  think  if  it  had  been  considerable  we  should  have 
noticed  it. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — It  will  be  fair  to  put,  "  that  is  all  I 
noticed  "? — Yes,,  that  is  all  I  noticed. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Is  it  a  scientific  fact  that  if  there  is  any  poison 
in  the  body  at  the  time  of  burial  it  does  not  matter  how  you  bury  the 
body,  there  is  a  tendency  for  that  poison  to  gravitate  to  the  left  side 
organs? — I  did  not  know  that. 

Especially  arsenic? — No,   I  was  not  aware  of  that,   I  am  afraid. 

Supposing  a  person  died  of  arsenical  poisoning,  is  not  there  a  ten- 
dency, however  the  body  is  buried  and  lain,  for  the  arsenic  to  be  found 
more  on  the  left  side  than  on  the  right  side? — I  was  not  aware  of  that. 

You  yourself  did  not  make  any  of  the  tests ;  you  were  telling  us 
what  Dr.  Willcox  has  told  you? — They  are  Dr.  Willcox's  figures. 

If  a  fatal  dose  is  administered  seventy-two  hours  before  death,  and 
death  ensues  from  that  dose,  would  you  expect  to  find  any  improvement 
in  the  condition  of  the  patient  between  the  administration  of  the  doso 
and  the  death  of  the  patient? — No,  I  should  not. 

Re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  make  the  qualifica- 
tion, "From  the  dose  only"? — From  the  dose  only. 

What  my  learned  friend  called  the  fatal  dose? — Yes;  I  understood 
him  to  say  a  moderately  large  dose. 

107 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  Bernard  Henry  Spilsbury 

My  learned  friend's  question  is  based  upon  this,  that  it  was  the 
dose,  whatever  it  was,  that  caused  the  death? — Yes. 

Suppose  a  moderately  large  dose  had  been  given  a  few  days  before 
the  last  dose — if  such  a  dose  had  been  given  a  few  days  before  the  seventy- 
two  hours,  or  before  the  seventy-two  hours,  might  there  be  an  improve- 
ment in  the  condition  of  the  patient  after  the  first  dose  had  been  adminis- 
tered?— There  might,  yes. 

Might  that  also  apply  if  there  had  been  another  moderately  large 
•dose  before  the  last  dose? — Yes,  there  might. 

Would  the  fact  of  one  moderately  large  dose  having  been  given 
before  the  last  dose  aggravate  the  condition  when  the  second  dose  is 
given? — Yes,  it  would. 

I  will  put  it  if  I  may  in  a  plain,  concrete  form.  Suppose  a  dose  of  a 
few  grains  to  have  been  given  on  one  date,  and  then  a  few  days  after 
another  dose — a  moderately  large  dose — had  been  given,  would  that  second 
moderately  large  dose  produce  a  greater  effect  upon  the  patient  than 
if  the  last  dose  had  been  the  first  given  i — Yes,  it  would. 

It  really  means  that  the  effect  would  be  cumulative? — To  that 
•extent,  yes. 

MAVIS  WILSON,  examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  have  a  dress  agency  at  158 
Stroud  Green  Road.  I  have  known  Miss  Maggie  Seddon  for  about  fifteen 
months.  On  26th  August  of  last  year  I  sold  her  in  my  shop  a  pair  of 
shoes  and  a  little  writing  case.  I  made  a  note  of  the  purchase  in  my 
l>ook.  My  shop  is  about  two  minutes'  walk  from  27  Crouch  Hill. 

Dr.  HENRY  GEORGE  SWORN,  recalled,  further  examined  by  Mr.  Mum — 
Last  night  my  son  handed  to  Sergeant  Hayman  a  sample  of  carbonate 
•of  bismuth  from  the  stock  I  had.  What  I  had  in  use  at  the  time  I  gave 
it  to  deceased  was  exhausted.  I  always  get  it  from  the  same  people, 
Willows,  Francis  <fe  Butler.  I  was  dispensing  bismuth  from  the  same 
stock  to  a  great  many  other  patients  in  September  last,  and  there  were 
no  ill  results  so  far  as  I  know. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Is  it  not  the  fact 
that  carbonate  of  bismuth  is  known  to  contain  a  slight  adulteration  of 
arsenic? — I  always  thought  it  was  commercial  bismuth  that  contained 
that. 

Do  you  not  know  that  in  the  pharmacopoeia  there  is  a  minimum 
adulteration  which  is  recognised? — I  know  there  is  a  trace  of  arsenic. 

AB  a  matter  of  fact,  do  not  your  opponents,  the  homceopathists, 
claim  that  the  sole  merit  of  bismuth  carbonate  is  due  to  the  minute 
•quantity  of  arsenic  in  it? — Yes,  I  know  that  is  their  idea. 

Dr.  WILLIAM  HENRY  WILLCOX,  examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — 
1  am  a  doctor  of  medicine  and  a  Fellow  of  the  Royal  College  of  Physicians. 
I  am  senior  scientific  analyst  to  the  Home  Office.  On  15th  November 
of  last  year  I  was  present  at  the  post-mortem  examination  of  the  body 
of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  made  by  Dr.  Spilsbury.  The  liver,  stomach, 
intestines,  spleen,  kidneys,  lungs,  heart,  blood-stained  fluid  from  chest, 
&  portion  of  the  brain,  a  muscle,  and  some  bone  were  removed  for  analysis. 
108 


Evidence  tor  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

The  body  was  well  preserved,  especially  the  internal  organs.  On  29th 
November  I  made  a  further  examination  of  the  body  and  removed  some 
of  the  hair  of  the  head,  some  muscle,  and  nails  from  the  hands  and  feet,, 
and  I  weighed  the  body.  All  these  organs  and  tissues  have  been  care- 
fully examined  and  analysed  by  me. 

What  did  you  find  in  all  the  organs  and  tissues? — Arsenic. 

And  in  the  blood-stained  fluid? — Yes.  I  found  the  largest  propor- 
tion of  arsenic  in  the  intestines,  the  stomach,  the  liver,  and  the  muscles. 
I  also  found  traces  of  arsenic  in  the  skin,  the  hair,  and  the  nails — I  found 
arsenic  distributed  throughout  the  body.  The  fact  of  two  months- 
having  passed  would  not  in  any  way  have  destroyed  the  arsenic — a  mineral 
— which  was  in  the  body  when  it  was  Buried ;  it  may  be  preserved  for 
years.  Arsenic  is  practically  tasteless,  and  when  dissolved  in  water  it 
forms  a  colourless  solution  like  water.  I  heard  the  evidence  of  Dr. 
Sworn  at  the  inquest,  and  also  here.  I  heard  his  description  of  the 
symptoms — vomiting,  pain  in  the  stomach,  diarrhoea,  and  weakness. 

Assuming  a  doctor  called  in  to  a  patient,  and  that  doctor  had  no 
suspicion  of  arsenical  poisoning,  would  there  be  anything  to  indicate  to 
him  that  it  was  a  case  of  arsenical  poisoning  and  not  of  epidemic  diarrhoea  T 
— No.  As  a  result  of  the  examination  and  the  various  analyses  that  I 
have  made  in  this  case,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  cause  of  death  of  Eliza 
Mary  Barrow  was  acute  arsenical  poisoning.  I  have  a  large  experience- 
of  such  cases.  In  the  analysis  of  an  organ,  say  the  liver,  I  took  a  certain 
portion  of  that  organ ;  and  weighing  that  portion,  having  previously 
weighed  the  whole  organ,  from  that  portion  I  estimated  the  amount  of 
arsenic  and  calculated  from  this  amount  the  quantity  of  arsenic  present 
in  the  whole  organ.  In  this  case  a  quarter  of  the  whole  organ  was  taken 
in  the  case  of  the  liver  and  a  fifth  in  the  case  of  the  intestines.  I  always 
reserve  a  portion  of  the  organs  for  further  analysis,  so  that  if  I  want  to 
test  or  confirm  what  I  have  already  done,  I  have  something  already 
undealt  with  in  order  that  I  may  do  it.  I  have  the  unanalysed  portions 
still,  which  could  be  analysed  if  desired.  In  the  case  of  some  of  the 
other  organs  smaller  aliquot  portions  were  taken  for  analysis,  so  that 
the  multiplying  factor  would  be  greater.  I  have  applied  all  the  well- 
known  tests  for  arsenic,  including  "Marsh's  test."  As  the  result  of 
those  tests  I  would  be  able  to  detect  that  there  was  arsenic,  and  from 
the  process  I  have  described  I  would  be  able  to  ascertain  the  quantity 
of  arsenic. 

It  is  Marsh's  test  that  gives  the  "  mirror  "  j  I  have  the  mirrors  from 
all  the  organs  here,  and  I  produce  five  specimens.  Taking  the  stomach 
as  an  example — a  portion  of  the  stomach  was  treated  so  as  to  destroy  the 
organic  matter,  and  a  solution  of  this  portion  was  obtained.  This  was 
placed  in  the  hydrogen  apparatus  used  for  the  Marsh  test.  When  arsenic 
is  present  it  comes  off  as  a  gas,  and  if  a  tube,  through  which  the  gas  is 
passing,  be  heated,  the  gaseous  arsenic  compound  is  decomposed  so  that 
the  arsenic  is  deposited  as  a  black  deposit  called  a  mirror.  If  there  was 
no  arsenic  there  would  be  no  black  deposit.  That  is  a  scientific  test  by 
which  we  detect  whether  there  is  arsenic  present  or  not,  and  in  my 
experience  it  is  an  infallible  test  if  done  with  proper  care  and  skill.  I" 
used  the  greatest  care  and  precautions  in  all  these  tests.  In  this  case- 

109 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

DP.  William  Henry  Willcox 

I  also  used  sheep's  liver,  and  I  did  the  analyses  side  by  side,  so  that  had 
any  arsenic  been  present  in  the  apparatus  or  in  the  chemicals  used,  it 
would  have  been  detected.  I  did  not  get  any  mirror  from  the  sheep's 
liver. 

I  produce  a  table  \vhich  I  have  made  containing  the  result  of  the 
various  tests  of  the  organs  and  parts  of  the  body.  The  total  weight  of 
the  stomach  is  given  as  105  grammes,  and  it  works  out  that  by  the 
calculations  in  the  whole  of  the  stomach  there  was  found  '11  of  a  grain  of 
arsenic.  In  the  case  of  the  liver  and  the  intestines  the  quantity  was 
.estimated  by  weighing,  and  the  result  was  that  "63  of  a  grain  was  found 
in  the  intestines.  The  weighing  process  which  I  adopted  was  a  well-known 
process,  not  Marsh's  test;  In  all  the  other  cases  I  used  Marsh's  method. 
In  the  case  of  the  stomach  I  took  20  grammes  and  made  that  into  a  solution, 
and  then  I  took  a  portion  of  that  solution  which  represented  "48  grammes, 
and  my  mirror  is  arrived  at  from  that  small  portion  which  I  have  taken 
of  the  whole  solution. 

Leaving  out  what  you  found  in  the  hair,  the  bone,  and  the  skin, 
what  was  the  total  amount,  according  to  your  calculation,  that  you  found 
in  the  body  when  you  analysed  it? — 2'01  grains.  More  arsenic  had  been 
taken  by  the  patient,  because  almost  invariably,  when  arsenic  is  taken 
the  body  rejects  it  by  vomiting,  by  purging,  and  by  the  passing  of  urine, 
which  will  contain  arsenic.  There  must  have  been  considerably  more 
than  two  grains,  but  I  cannot  give  the  exact  figure.  There  might  have 
been  up  to  about  five  grains  taken  within  three  days  of  death.  I  do  not 
give  any  figure  for  the  hair,  skin,  and  bone.  I  have  not  given  any 
figure  in  the  case  of  the  skin,  because  I  did  not  know  how  to  make  the 
calculations ;  and  then,  in  the  case  of  the  bone,  there  was  scarcely  any 
arsenic  present — it  was  only  the  most  minute  trace. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BTJCKNILL — In  the  case  of  the  hair  there  would  have 
been  difficulty  because  the  arsenic  lay  chiefly  in  the  part  next  the  skin, 
near  the  roots,  so  that  I  could  not  really  calculate  it  out  very  well.  The 
passing  of  the  arsenic  into  the  hair  would  occupy  more  time  than  the 
passing  of  the  arsenic  to  other  parts  of  the  body,  the  liver,  say.  It 
would  take  some  little  time,  some  few  days,  for  the  arsenic  to  deposit  in 
•the  nails,  a  little  longer  than  in  any  of  the  organs.  As  regards  the  bone, 
it  is  stated  that  in  chronic  cases  of  arsenical  poisoning,  where  it  has 
been  taken  for  many  weeks  and  months,  there  is  a  considerable  amount 
in  the  bone,  but  I  cannot  speak  from  my  own  experience  about  the  bone. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  do  not  propose  to  read  the  table  through, 
but  I  should  say  that  it  contains  the  result  which  can  be  shown  to  the 
jury  if  my  lord  thinks  proper ;  it  is  the  analysis  which  makes  up  the 
table  of  the  2'01  grains,  and  is  the  analysis  of  the  stomach,  kidneys, 
spleen,  lungs,  heart,  brain,  blood  fluid,  bones,  nails,  skin,  muscles,  hair, 
liver,  and  intestine,  and  the  two  grains  is  made  up  without  taking  into 
account  the  bone,  skin,  and  hair ;  that  is  how  it  stands.  (Copies  of  the 
table  were  handed  to  the  jury.) 

Examination  continued — As  the  result  of  the  various  analyses  and 
"tests  which  I  made,  in  my  opinion  the  fatal  dose  of  arsenic  was  taken 
'within  two  or  three  days  of  death,  probably  within  two  days. 

Did  you  find  any  other  poison  than  arsenic  in  the  body? — I  found 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

bismuth  and  traces  of  mercury  corresponding  to  the  proper  administration 
of  these  drugs.  I  have  heard  the  evidence  as  to  the  medicines  that  -were 
administered  to  the  deceased,  that  mercury  was  administered  in  a  blue 
pill  and  carbonate  of  bismuth  in  another  medicine.  The  quantities  I 
found  in  the  body  corresponded  with  what  I  would  expect  to  find  from 
these  administrations.  I  had  two  samples  of  carbonate  of  bismuth 
delivered  to  me  last  night.  I  analysed  these  by  the  Marsh's  test,  and 

1  find  that  they  are  practically  free  from  arsenic ;  there  is  a  very  minute 
trace  only,   about  one   part  in   a   million,   so   that   it  would  take   about 

2  cwts.  of  carbonate   of  bismuth  to   give  two   grains  of   arsenic.        The 
relatively   large    amount   of    arsenic   found    in   the    stomach    and    in    the 
intestines  leads  me  to  the  opinion  that  I  have  given  as  to  the  time  when 
the   fatal  dose  was   administered.     The   arsenic  had   been   taken  during 
the  last  two  days ;  I  cannot  say  exactly  how  long  it  had  been  taken  before, 
but  it  is  likely  that  it  might  have  been  taken  for  some  days  before  the 
fatal  dose,  because  of  the  presence  of  arsenic  in  the  hair  and  nails  and 
skin,   the  decomposition  of  which  would  take  probably  some  little  time, 
some  few  days.     In  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning  the  stools  would 
be   offensive ;    as   compared   with   the   stools   from   epidemic   diarrhoea,   I 
do  not  think  that  any  one  would  distinguish  between  them  in  that  respect. 
The  body  of  a  person  dying  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  would  decompose 
rapidly  in  hot  weather.      The  body   of   a  person  who   died   from  acute 
arsenical  poisoning  would  not  decompose  as  rapidly  as  the  body  of  a  person 
dying  from  epidemic  diarrhoea,  because  the  arsenic  would  probably  exert 
some  preservative  action  on  the  organs  in  which  it  was  deposited.     I  have 
found  that  result  in  other  cases  of  arsenical  poisoning. 

On  llth  December  I  had  a  packet  of  Mather's  fly-papers  brought  to 
me,  and  I  analysed  them.  During  the  course  of  this  case  I  have  had  a 
number  of  packets  brought  to  me,  which  I  have  also  analysed  for  the 
purpose  of  extracting  the  arsenic.  I  analysed  two  of  the  papers  that 
I  got  on  llth  December — these  papers  were  obtained  from  Mr.  Price — 
and  I  found  that  one  contained  3'8  grains  of  arsenic  and  the  other 
contained  4' 17  grains.  I  also  obtained  some  Mather's  fly-papers  from 
Mr.  Thorley,  and  I  found  4'8  grains  in  one  paper.  In  one  of  Needham's 
papers  I  found  6  grains  ;  in  Dodds',  3'8  grains;  and  in  Spink's,  4'1  grains. 
The  extraction  which  I  have  given  is  the  result  of  a  scientific  process 
which  extracts  the  whole  lot.  I  have  also  made  experiments  to  extract 
arsenic  by  boiling  a  fly-paper  in  a  little  water.  If  a  paper  is  actually 
boiled  in  water  for  some  minutes  nearly  all  the  arsenic  comes  out.  I  took 
a  fly-paper  out  of  a  packet  which  I  got  from  Needham's,  and  I  immersed 
it  in  a  quarter  of  a  pint  of  water  and  boiled  it  for  five  minutes ;  I  then 
left  it  standing  over  the  night,  and  I  poured  the  liquid  off  and  found  that 
there  was  6'6  grains  of  arsenic  in  solution  in  the  liquid.  There  was 
another  of  Needham's  papers  which  I  boiled  for  five  minutes,  poured  the 
liquid  off  at  once,  and  then  found  six  grains  of  arsenic.  With  one  of 
Dodds'  papers  I  found  three  grains,  that  being  the  lowest  I  got  in  this 
process  of  boiling.  Arsenic  which  is  found  in  fly-papers  is  in  combination 
with  soda,  and  is  in  a  particularly  soluble  form. 

You  have  told  us  that  you  found  2*01  grains  as  the  result  of  these 
tests.  Would  that  be  sufficient  to  kill  an  adult  person? — Yes. 

in 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Wllleox 

You  have  told  us  that  that,  in  your  view,  was  part  of  a  dose  of  some 
five  grains? — Yes. 

Would  that  be  sufficient  to  kill  an  adult  person? — It  probably  would. 
The  fluid,  as  the  result  of  this  boiling  process,  would  have  a  slightly 
bitter  taste,  and  the  water  would  be  more  or  less  coloured  by  the  paper. 
(Two  bottles  of  fly-paper  solution  put  in,  and  marked  exhibits  140-141. 
Bottle  of  Valentine's  meat  juice  put  in,  and  marked  exhibit  142.  The 
bottle,  exhibit  140,  was  handed  to  the  jury,  who  tasted  the  contents.) 
The  more  arsenic  there  is  the  more  quassia,  and  so  the  more  bitter  it 
tastes.  There  is  a  grain  of  arsenic  in  solution  in  the  bottle  which  the 
jury  have. 

Could  arsenic  in  solution  of  the  kind  you  exhibit  be  administered  in 
Valentine's  meat  juice  without  detection  by  the  patient? — I  think  so. 
("  Particulars  of  Analysis  "  put  in,  and  marked  exhibit  144.) 

What  are  the  symptoms  of  chronic  arsenical  poisoning  as  dis- 
tinguished from  acute  arsenical  poisoning? — The  patient  suffers  from 
anaemia  and  general  weakness,  vomiting  is  usually  not  present,  and 
abdominal  pain  is  usually  not  present.  The  skin  often  becomes  brown 
in  colour,  and  rashes  may  appear  on  the  skin.  The  eyes  may  become 
red  and  sore  and  inflamed.  The  patient  often  suffers  from  chronic  cough 
and  irritation  in  the  throat,  and  after  a  few  weeks  signs  of  neuritis  occur, 
which  are  pains  in  the  limbs,  numbness,  and  finally  some  paralysis. 
The  finger  nails  are  thickened  and  brittle,  and  lose  their  lustre,  and  the 
skin  of  the  palms  and  soles  often  becomes  thickened.  The  hair  may 
become  coarse  and  fall  out.  I  have  some  of  the  nails  here ;  they  appear 
to  be  quite  normal.  The  palms  of  the  hands  and  the  soles  of  the  feet 
appear  normal.  I  did  not  observe  anything  that  would  indicate  chronic 
arsenical  poisoning.  By  acute  arsenical  poisoning  I  mean  the  result  of 
one  or  more  fatal  doses.  The  symptoms  are  of  a  very  pronounced  char- 
acter ;  the  patient  is  faint  and  collapsed,  there  is  severe  pain  in  the 
abdomen  and  severe  vomiting  and  purging,  and  death  is  likely  to  result 
within  a  few  days.  Sometimes  there  are  cramps  in  the  ankles,  but  that 
is  not  a  constant  symptom.  There  would  not  be  constipation  in  acute 
arsenical  poisoning ;  in  chronic  arsenical  poisoning  it  would  be  an  unusual 
symptom.  Usually  there  is  looseness  of  the  bowels  even  in  chronic 
arsenical  poisoning.  There  would  be  great  thirst  in  acute  arsenical 
poisoning,  the  thirst  depending  on  the  amount  of  vomiting  and  diarrhoea. 

Now,  taking  the  result  of  all  your  various  analyses,  tests,  and 
examinations,  what  do  you  say  was  the  cause  of  Miss  Barrow's  death? — 
Acute  arsenical  poisoning. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — You  told  us  the  result  of 
your  experiments  upon  the  fly-papers  procured  promiscuously  which  pro- 
duced a  varying  quantity  of  arsenic  from  three  up  to  six  grains? — That  is 
boiling  with  water. 

Now,  have  you  tried  at  all  how  much  can  be  eliminated  from  the 
paper  by  the  application  of  cold  water? — Yes,  I  have  tested  two  papers. 
In  one  paper  '6  of  a  grain  was  obtained  from  the  whole  paper.  That  was 
tearing  the  paper  up  and  soaking  it  in  cold  water  for  sixteen  hours.  In 
the  other  case  1*3  grains. 

So  that  even  in  cold  water  you  can  get  1*3  grains? — Yes. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

In  what  quantity  of  water  was  that? — That  would  be  about  a  quarter 
of  a  pint  of  cold  water. 

There  is  nothing  on  the  face  of  the  fly-paper  itself  or  on  the  back  to 
indicate  even  approximately  the  quantity  of  arsenic  it  contains? — No. 

They  merely  say  that  it  ought  to  be  kept  out  of  the  way  of  children  and 
animals  because  of  that? — Yes. 

Would  the  regular  mode  of  employing  these  fly-papers  be  to  put  them 
in  some  hollow  receptacle  like  a  saucer  or  a  soup  plate,  and  then  put 
water  on  them? — Yes. 

The  effect  on  the  fly  is  that  the  fly  drinks  the  water  and  dies  else- 
where— it  does  not  die  in  the  saucer? — No. 

So  that  the  fluid  that  would  remain  in  the  saucer  would  remain  clean 
and  clear? — It  might. 

And  with  cold  water  you  do  not  get  the  same  amount  of  colouring 
that  you  do  with  hot  water? — No,  it  is  paler. 

It  is  very  much  paler,  is  it  not? — Yes. 

But  suppose  the  fly-paper  were  put  in  a  soup  plate  or  a  deep  saucer, 
and  the  cold  water  was  poured  on  it  and  it  was  allowed  to  remain  for 
twenty-four  hours,  thirty-six  hours,  or  forty -eight  hours,  the  water  on  the 
top  of  that  would  contain  a  very  small  portion  of  arsenic  ? — It  might  contain 
a  couple  of  grains — from  one  to  two  grains. 

On  your  theory  of  extracting  the  arsenic  by  means  of  boiling  water 
you  must  get  the  colour? — Yes. 

And  as  you  concentrate  the  resulting  solution  you  must  equally 
heighten  the  colour,  because  you  cannot  extract  the  arsenic  without  extract- 
ing the  colouring  matter  with  it? — That  is  so. 

Therefore,  if  we  are  going  to  get  your  full  quantity  of  three  grains  or 
six  grains — your  poisonous  dose — out  of  a  fly-paper,  the  result  of  that  is 
that  unless  you  make  a  very  dilute  solution  you  will  get  relatively  a  highly- 
coloured  solution? — Yes. 

What  is  the  dose  of  Valentine's  meat  juice — a  teaspoonful  in  a  tumbler 
full  of  water? — On  the  bottle  it  says,  "One  spoonful  to  be  diluted  with 
three  tablespoonfuls  of  water." 

If  you  are  going  to  put  the  resultant  extract  from  a  fly-paper  into  that, 
you  have  got  to  put  much  more  than  three  tablespoonfuls  of  water,  have 
you  not,  if  you  are  going  to  get  the  whole  quantity  out  of  your  fly-paper? 
— It  depends  upon  how  much  water. 

I  was  going  to  say  you  have  the  alternative  of  two  things,  whether 
you  are  going  to  have  the  maximum  colour  or  concentrate  your  solution? — 
Yes. 

Or  you  have  to  have  the  maximum  of  the  quantity  by  reducing  the 
colour  of  the  solution? — Yes. 

Because  if  you  reduce  the  quantity  of  fluid  you  increase  the  bitterness 
of  the  solution? — Yes. 

Now,  in  order  to  get  a  full  dose  of  arsenic  from  a  fly-paper  into 
approximately  three  tablespoonfuls  of  water  you  would  have  almost  the 
maximum  of  colour,  would  you  not? — You  would  have  a  great  deal  of 
colour. 

And  a  correlative  amount  of  bitterness? — Yes. 

Now,  I  want  to  begin  at  the  beginning  of  this  other  matter,  where  my 
H  113 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Wlllcox 

learned  friend,  the  Attorney-General,  left  off  for  a  moment,  on  the  question 
of  what  he  calls  chronic  arsenical  poisoning  as  distinguished  from  acute. 
There  is  another  stage,  is  there  not — there  is  the  chronic  stage  of  arsenic 
taking  which  could  not  be  said  toxicologically  to  amount  to  poisoning? — Yes. 
I  mean  the  dose,  say,  of  one-tenth  of  a  grain  is  a  recognised  medical 
dose,  is  it  not? — One-tenth  of  a  grain  is  rather  a  big  dose.  One-tenth  of 
a  grain  given  during  the  day  is  a  recognised  dose. 

One-thirtieth  of  a  grain  three  times  a  day  is  a  recognised  dose? — A 
common  dose. 

It  was  admitted  by,  I  think,  Dr.  Smith,  that  a  well-known  firm,  who 
are  only  wholesale,  supply  the  retail  chemists  with  arsenious  acid  in  the 
form  of  twentieths  of  a  grain  and  fiftieths  of  a  grain  in  the  tabloid  form  ? — 
Yes,  that  is  so. 

And  they  are  weighed  with  the  utmost  accuracy,  and  are  probably 
reliable? — That  is  so. 

Now,  supposing  a  person  was  taking  a  large  but  safe  medicinal  dose 
continuously  for  a  period  extending  over  months,  and  even  possibly  over 
a  year,  that  would  not  necessarily  produce  arsenical  poisoning? — No,  not 
necessarily.  It  depends  on  the  patient. 

We  are  coming  to  a  very  important  matter,  the  question  of  individual 
tolerance  ? — Yes. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  idiosyncrasy  with  regard  to  drugs  is  well- 
n  igh  inexplicable  1 — Yes . 

For  instance,  belladonna  may  be  taken  in  large  doses  by  some,  while 
others  can  only  take  minute  doses? — That  is  so. 
And  morphia  has  the  same  feature? — Yes. 

And  the  same  idiosyncrasy  prevails  with  regard  to  arsenic? — Yes. 
We   know  there  has   been   a   very   important   Royal   Commission   on 
arsenical  poisoning  quite  within  the  last  few  years  owing  to  the  poisoning 
that  took  place  in  Manchester  by  reason  of  the  beer? — Yes. 

And  one  of  the  chief  features  investigated  there  was  the  individual 
idiosyncrasies  with  regard  to  arsenic? — Yes. 

And  the  absence  of  poisonous  symptoms  in  people  who  had  taken 
comparatively  large  doses  of  arsenic  over  a  long  time? — That  is  so. 

In  the  report  of  that  Commission  I  find  that  they  gave  one  instance 
certainly  where  three-tenths  of  a  grain  two  or  three  times  a  day  had  been 
taken,  and  it  was  quoted  as  an  instance  of  tolerance  of  comparatively  large 
doses? — Yes,  page  11,  section  29. 

"  Instances  of  tolerance  of  large  medicinal  doses  such  as,"  &c.  (reading 
to  the  words),  "  three-tenths  of  a  grain  of  arsenic  two  or  three  times  a  day 
have  for  some  time  been  reported  by  Dr.  Stephenson  and  Professor  Darby." 
Of  course,  I  am  not  going  into  the  stereotyped  question,  because  there  is 
a  question  of  time  there,  and  there  is  a  question  of  a  long  period  of 
tolerance,  because  you  may  get  up  to  twenty  grains  a  day  with  impunity? 
— Yes.  In  these  cases  where  large  doses  are  given  the  patient  has  to  be 
worked  up  to  it.  For  instance,  with  regard  to  this  dose  mentioned  here, 
the  patient  would  be  given  one-tenth  of  a  grain  a  day  first,  and  then  they 
would  gradually  increase  so  that  he  took  three-tenths  a  day. 

A  little  lower  down  the  report  goes  on  to  say,  "  The  epidemic  of  1907 
afforded  many  instances  of  tolerance.    In  fact,  one  of  the  most  instructive 
114 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

DP.  William  Henry  Willcox 

facts  of  the  epidemic  was  the  large  number  of  people  who  must  have  been 
drinking  beer  from  which  there  must  have  been  eliminated  by  arsenic,"  &c. 
(reading  to  the  words),  "without  any  apparent  result"?  Do  you  agree 
with  that?— Yes. 

You  would  not  say  that  it  was  impossible  that  the  patient  could  take 
medicinal  doses  of  arsenic  for  more  than  twelve  months  without  showing 
any  signs  of  poisoning? — No. 

And  may  I  take  it  that  in  the  case  of  a  patient,  whether  by  reason 
of  peculiar  idiosyncrasy  as  to  tolerance,  or  for  any  other  cause  unexplained, 
they  are  able  to  take  medicinal  doses  of  arsenic  for  a  long  period  of  time? 
You  would  not  expect  to  find  any  symptoms  of  arsenical  poisoning? — They 
might  be  absent,  but  usually  the  skin  gets  browned. 

I  was  just  going  to  put  it  to  you  that  probably  the  only  one  that 
would  not  be  avoided  would  be  the  browning  of  the  skin? — The  browning 
of  the  skin.  There  might  be  some  changes  in  the  appearance  of  the  nails, 
but  that  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  would  be  present. 

I  quite  understand  the  position  you  take  up,  that  upon  the  experiments 
which  you  have  made,  which  I  am  going  to  deal  with  in  detail  in  a  moment 
—on  the  experiments  you  have  made,  and  the  results  you  have  obtained, 
you  have  come  to  a  considered  opinion  that  this  was  a  case  of  acute  arsenical 
poisoning  ? — Yes. 

Of  course,  that  does  not  bring  us  any  nearer  as  to  whether  it  was 
wilful  or  accidental  taking? — No. 

In  the  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning  you  would  expect  to  find, 
would  you  not,  burning  in  the  throat  immediately  following  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  fatal  dose? — I  should  not  expect  necessarily  to  find  it.  It 
might  be  present. 

Would  you  not  expect  to  find  cramp  almost  at  once  in  a  very  marked 
form  if  the  dose  was  large?— Not  necessarily.  In  a  good  many  cases  cramp 
was  absent. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  the  cramp  normally  would  follow  very  shortly 
and  in  severity  would  be  proportionate  to  the  size  of  the  fatal  dose?— 
Frequently  cramps  are  absent.  It  is  not  a  constant  symptom. 

I  take  your  answer.  You  would  expect,  however,  in  the  case  of  the 
administration  of  a  dose  like  four  or  five  grains  acute  pain  in  the  abdomen 
within  thirty  minutes  at  least  ?— Probably  in  about  thirty  minutes.  It 
depends  upon  the  state  of  the  stomach. 

And,  of  course,  the  more  delicate  the  state  of  the  stomach — and  by 
delicate  I  mean  the  more  irritated  the  membrane  was — the  quicker  would 
be  the  pain  caused  by  the  arsenical  administration? — Yes. 

Except  for  the  fact,  if  it  is  a  fact,  that  you  say  that  two  grains  of 
arsenic  was  present  in  its  entirety  in  this  body— that  is  your  calculation- 
was  there  anything  in  the  condition  of  this  body  that  negatived  the 
assumption  of  death  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  ?— The  only  other  condition 
present  was  the  preservation  of  the  internal  organs. 

I  ought  to  have  put  that  to  you— that  therefore  it  is  the  presence  of 
arsenic  in  the  quantity  in  which  you  found  it,  of  course? — Yes. 

The  presence  of  a  much  smaller  quantity  of  arsenic  would  not,  of 
course,  confirm  your  view  so  strongly,  would  it?  I  mean  supposing' the 
quantity  of  arsenic  turned  out  to  be  something  like  half  what  you  have 

"5 


Trial   of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

calculated.  I  mean  upon  your  calculations  that  would  modify  your  view 
as  to  its  being  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning? — I  do  not  know  that 
it  would. 

Just  one  question  on  the  question  of  preservation.  It  is  a  fact,  of 
course,  that  arsenic  is  a  preservative? — Yes. 

It  is  not  in  any  way  a  disinfectant,  is  it?  How  does  it  act  as  a 
preservative — by  being  a  disinfectant? — By  the  term  "disinfectant"  you 
mean  something  which  prevents  the  growth  of  microbes? 

Yes? — Arsenic  does  do  that  to  some  extent. 

Therefore  to  that  extent  it  is  a  disinfectant? — To  some  extent. 

Would  you  not  expect  to  find,  if  that  is  so,  that  stools  brought  on 
by  acute  arsenical  poisoning  would  be  less  offensive  than  stools  of  a  normal 
character? — I  know  as  a  fact  that  there  is  practically  no  difference,  and 
the  preservative  effect  of  arsenic  is  rather  in  this  way.  It  is  easier  to 
prevent  the  growth  of  microbes  than  to  kill  microbes  when  they  are  in 
luxuriance.  In  the  intestines  there  are  millions  and  millions  of  microbes 
swarming  which  the  arsenic  would  not  be  able  to  kill,  but  in  the  liver 
and  kidneys  the  presence  of  a  little  arsenic  there,  where  there  are  no 
microbes,  will  prevent  them  from  growing. 

But  there  are  recorded  cases,  are  there  not,  where  in  the  case  of  con- 
firmed arsenic  eaters  who  have  died,  the  bodies  have  been  found  in  a  very 
short  time  in  a  very  advanced  state  of  decomposition? — This  condition  of 
preservation  is  not  constant. 

You  put  it  in  this  way,  that  the  presence  of  it  is  in  your  opinion 
confirmatory  of  your  arsenic  theory,  but  you  do  not  say  it  is  universal? — It 
is  not  universal. 

Now,  so  far  as  thirst  is  concerned,  thirst  is  merely  a  natural  effort  to 
replace  moisture  that  is  wasted? — Exactly. 

And  so  therefore  if  you  are  wasting  your  moisture  by  being  sick  and 
by  constant  purging,  it  does  not  matter  what  the  cause  be  that  excites 
those  two  symptoms,  you  naturally  would  expect  thirst? — Quite  so. 

So  therefore  we  may  eliminate  thirst,  I  mean  as  pointing  either  one 
way  or  the  other.  It  would  be  a  common  factor  either  of  epidemic 
diarrhoea  or  of  arsenical  poisoning? — Yes. 

What  do  you  say  is  the  extreme  period  that  could  have  elapsed  between 
the  fatal  dose  which  you  think  caused  death  in  this  case  being  taken  and 
death  ensuing? — Three  days. 

That  is  the  extreme.  Now,  would  you  also  tell  me  what  in  your 
opinion  is  the  minimum  period?  I  think  you  said  not  less  than  six,  and 
probably  not  more  than  twenty-four,  hours.  What  is  the  minimum 
time? — A  few  hours. 

Assuming  the  dose  be  what  you  call  a  moderately  fatal  dose,  what 
would  you  say  in  your  opinion  would  be  the  time,  having  regard  to  the 
condition  of  the  body  on  which  you  have  founded  your  observations,  be- 
tween the  administration  of  the  dose  and  death  ensuing? — A  few  hours. 

By  a  few 'what  do  you  mean? — Probably  five  or  six.  It  might 
conceivably  be  less. 

But  in  that  case  the  agony  would  be  intense,  of  course ;  if  the  dose 
were  so  strong  that  death  ensued  within  three  or  four  hours  ? — There  would 
116 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

DP.  William  Henry  Willeox 

be  very  intense  agony  at  first,  and  then  probably  the  patient  would  become 
faint  and  collapse,  and  then  would  not  feel  very  much. 

But  the  intense  agony  would  be  hardly  bearable  by  any  ordinary 
human  being  ? — It  would  be  the  same  pain  as  in  severe  cholera — choleraic 
pain  or  severe  diarrhoea . 

Your  symptoms  of  chronic  poisoning  would  be,  of  course,  symptoms 
of  a  severe  chronic  poisoning  which,  if  not  arrested,  would  result  in  death? 
— Not  necessarily. 

When  you  get  to  a  state  of  paralysis  and  irritation  to  the  throat 
would  you  not  expect  to  find  chronic  cough? — In  chronic  poisoning  symptoms 
there  is  so  much  individual  susceptibility — some  patients  may  manifest 
some  extreme  symptoms  and  others  only  slight.  These  symptoms  may 
last  for  months. 

You  said  something  about  constipation.  In  the  Manchester  report 
they  found,  did  they  not,  that  constipation  was  quite  usual? — They  said 
it  was  present,  yes. 

In  a  very  large  number  of  cases? — Yes,  in  many  cases. 
Now,   first  of  all,   I  will  deal  with  the   organs — the  entire  organ  is 
removed  from  the  body? — Yes. 

Having  got  the  entire  organ,  you  then  separate  a  portion  from  that 
for  the  purpose  of  preparing  your  experimental  liquid? — Yes. 

Or  experimental  substance,  whatever  you  call  it.  Having  got  your 
sample  quantity  you  proceed  to  test  it  for  arsenic  by  what  is  known  as 
the  modified  Marsh  test? — Yes. 

In  order  to  control  your  experiments  you  test  a  piece  of  sheep's  liver 
to  see  that  it  does  not  contain  arsenic? — Yes. 

And  having  found  that  it  does  not  contain  arsenic  you  use  some 
portion  of  that  sheep's  liver  in  order  to  make  a  similar  solution  to  what 
you  want  to  test? — Yes. 

So  that  you  are  then  able  to  get  a  perfectly  neutral  liquid  which 
contains  no  arsenic,  and  which  under  the  Marsh  test  will  produce  no 
mirror? — Yes. 

Now  comes  a  matter  of  great  skill,  is  it  not,  on  the  question  of 
observation.  As  I  understand  it  there  is  a  hydrogen  apparatus  which, 
we  will  take  it,  is  also  free  from  arsenic — care  is  taken  to  see  that  the 
hydrogen  gas  is  passed  through  a  tube  where  the  suspected  arsenic  is, 
and  if  arsenic  is  there  the  arsenic  becomes  arsenious  hydrogen,  and 
deposits  in  the  tube  in  the  form  of  a  mirror?  Is  that  correct? — No. 

You  have  to  heat  the  tube? — The  substance  to  be  tested  is  really 
in  the  hydrogen  apparatus. 

And  if  there  is  arsenic  in  the  stuff  to  be  tested  you  convert  your 
hydrogen  into  arsenic  salt,  do  you  not? — Yes. 

And  that  deposits  on  the  side  of  the  heated  tube  in  a  black  substance 
on  that  which  you  call  a  mirror? — Yes. 

Now  the  quantity  of  arsenic  so  deposited  can  only  be  estimated  by 

comparison  with  known  mirrors  containing  known  quantities? — That  is  so. 

You  first  make  a  mirror  which  contains  a  particular  quantity,   and 

it  must  be  very  minute,  because  if  you  do  not  have  it  minute  you  get  an 

opaque  mirror,  and  you  cannot  see? — It  is  too  big  a  mirror  to  match. 

117 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

You  get  a  piece  of  this  very  sheep's  liver,  to  which  you  add  a  known 
quantity  of  arsenic;  you  make  a  mirror  from  that,  and  from  that  you 
know  that  that  mirror  shows  a  certain  percentage  of  arsenic,  as  you  have 
added  it  to  the  neutral  substance? — Yes. 

Then  having  got  that  mirror  you  compare  it  with  the  mirror  which 
is  given  by  the  suspected  substance,  and  from  the  one  you  deduce  the 
quantity  of  the  other? — Yes. 

By  examination? — We  have  a  series  of  mirrors.  I  have  them  here 
if  you  want  to  see  them. 

There  must  be,  because  the  human  eye  could  not  trace  the  resemblance 
— it  must  have  an  actual  resemblance  in  order  to  produce,  to  carry  it 
out,  so  that  you  prepare  a  series  of  mirrors? — A  series  of  standard  mirrors. 

So  that  you  ascertain  the  mirror  coming  off  from  a  known  quantity 
of  arsenic,  and  then  you  compare  the  mirrors  produced  by  the 
suspected  substance  with  the  mirrors,  the  quantity  of  arsenic  in  which  is 
known.  Now,  the  actual  quantity  of  arsenic  that  you,  by  comparison 
with  the  mirrors — take,  for  instance,  the  lungs — the  mirror  that  you 
prepare  from  the  lungs  shows  l-50th  part  of  a  milligramme  of  arsenic? — 
Yes. 

Of  course,  that  is  absolutely  an  unappreciable  amount  to  the  human 
eye? — I  have  the  mirror  here. 

You  could  not  get  off  that  mirror  the  l-50th  of  a  milligramme,  and 
weigh  it  even  if  you  could  get  it  off  ? — But  you  can  see  it. 

It  is  a  question  of  eyesight? — Yes. 

That  is  to  say,  with  your  eyes  you  see  it  exactly  corresponds  with 
another  mirror  that  has  been  made  by  a  solution  containing  l-50th  of  a 
milligramme  of  arsenic.  Is  that  so? — Yes. 

Is  that  the  standard  one? — No;  that  is  the  one  from  the  lung — the 
l-50th. 

Now  have  you  got  a  standard  l-50th? — Yes.        (Same  produced.) 

I  take  it,  of  course,  the  standards  were  prepared  by  you? — Yes. 
They  were  all  done  by  me. 

Just  let  me  look,  Now,  you  say  that  this  particular  mirror  I  have  in  my 
hand  approximates  to  a  mirror  which  is  marked  here  "  l-50th"? — Yes. 

There  are  two  colours,  the  brown  and  the  grey,  are  there  not? — A 
brown  and  black. 

Ought  the  brown  to  be  the  same  tint? — You  go  by  the  whole  mirror. 

Just  take  those  samples  for  a  moment.  (Same  handed  to  witness.) 
On  each  side  of  the  l-50th  is  a  l-40th  and  a  l-60th?— Yes. 

They  both  seem  to  give  a  metallic  mirror,  do  they? — There  is  rather 
more  of  the  brown  in  those  two  than  in  the  l-50th  one.  They  vary  a 
little. 

(The  witness  shows  the  mirrors  to  the  jury.) 

Now,  you  would  agree  with  me  as  to  the  importance  of  absolut/e 
accuracy — absolute  accuracy,  not  relative  accuracy — the  importance  of 
absolute  accuracy  with  regard  to  whether  it  is  l-40th,  or  l-50th,  or  l-60th, 
is  of  vital  importance  in  this  matter? — It  is  most  important  to  be  as 
accurate  as  possible. 

But  a  very  minute  difference  makes  a  very  great  difference  in  the 
result  of  arsenic  calculated  as  in  the  body,  does  it  not? — I  fully  admit  that. 
118 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Wlllcox 

Take,  for  instance,  the  lungs.  The  mirror  that  you  have  got  shows 
l-50th  part  of  a  milligramme,  which  is  equivalent  to  l-324:0th  part  of 
a  grain? — Yes. 

That  is  what  you  get  from  a  sample  which  weighs  six  grammes.  Is 
that  not  so? — Quite  so;  the  multiplying  factor  is  a  big  one. 

I  daresay  you  will  tell  me  the  multiplying  factor  in  order  to  arrive 
at  the  amount  of  arsenic  which  that  particular  organ  contained? — Roughly, 
it  is  fifty. 

Therefore  any  error  in  the  diagnosis  of  the  mirror  is  multiplied  fifty 
times  in  the  calculation  as  to  the  quantity  of  arsenic? — Exactly. 

Of  course,  it  would  be  physically  impossible  to  separate  the  quantity  of 
arsenic  in  any  other  way  as  a  mirror.  You  could  not  get  it  out  in  a  chemical 
substance,  could  you? — No.  You  could;  but  it  would  be  so  small  that  you 
could  not  weigh  it. 

Could  it  from  the  mirror  itself  be  reduced  again  into  solution  and  then 
precipitated  in  any  way? — Yes.  It  would  be  such  a  small  amount  that  you 
could  not  weigh  it  properly. 

Probably  there  is  no  machine  known  to  the  world  that  could  weigli 
it,  and  I  suppose  it  would  want  a  very  good  microscope  to  see  it? — It  would 
not  want  a  very  good  microscope,  because  you  can  see  it  with  the  naked 
eye. 

I  know,  but  I  am  talking  of  metallic  arsenic — of  arsenic  itself? — It 
would  be  visible,  but  it  would  be  very  small. 

Is  what  you  see  on  the  mirror  metallic  arsenic  very  finely  subdivided 
and  spread  on  the  face  of  the  mirror? — Yes. 

Therefore  if  that  is  metallic  arsenic  it  can  be  scraped  off? — Yes. 

And,  of  course,  would  be  visible  as  you  reduce  it  to  fine  subdivision? — 
It  would  be  very  small. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  could  not  reduce  it  to  a  crystal? — 
You  could  have  a  crystal  of  another  compound  of  arsenic. 

Of  the  same  weight? — Yes. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — A  crystal  which  no  machine  known  to  science 
at  the  present  day  could  weigh? — It  could  be  weighed,  but  it  would  not  be 
practicable  to  weigh  it. 

Would  you  mind  telling  me  what  the  multiplying  factor  was  in  the 
case  of  the  stomach? — The  multiplying  factor  in  the  case  of  the  stomach 
would  be  about  200. 

In  the  kidneys  how  much? — 60. 

Would  you  mind  telling  me  as  I  am  passing  which  kidney  you  took? — 
I  could  not  tell  you  that — portions  of  each,  as  far  as  I  recollect. 

If  you  tell  me  there  is  practically  no  difference  between  the  organs  on 
the  left  or  right  hand  side  or  between  the  right  hand  lobe  or  left  hand  lobe 
I  will  leave  it? — There  is  none. 

What  was  the  multiplying  factor  in  the  spleen? — 13. 

The  multiplying  factor  in  the  lungs  was  60,  was  it  not? — Yes. 

What  is  the  multiplying  factor  in  the  hair? — 50. 

In  the  brain? — There  is  such  a  little  there  that  I  think  we  might 
leave  that. 

The  blood  fluid? — The  multiplying  factor  there  was  11J. 

The  nails — there,  again,  there  is  so  little? — 4. 

119 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dp.  William  Henry  Wlllcox 

The  skin?— Well,  I  did  not  add  that  up. 

Obviously  you  did  not  attempt  that,  because  it  would  be  practically 
too  small? — Yes. 

Now  comes  the  liver,  which  was  done  by  another  person.  You  have 
got  '17  of  a  grain? — Between  one-fifth  and  one-sixth  of  a  grain. 

In  the  intestines  you  got  a  little  over  half  a  grain? — Yes. 

Two-thirds  of  a  grain.  You  have  given  us  the  multiplying  factors  in 
the  others,  and  I  know  that  the  quantities  found  practically  are  one-thirtieth, 
and  one-thirtieth,  and  one-thirtieth  of  a  milligramme,  one-fiftieth  and  one- 
sixtieth  of  a  milligramme.  The  quantities  you  found  or  rather  estimated — 
the  actual  quantities  I  am  going  to  show  from  these  samples  which  you 
produced;  one  is  l-1944th  of  a  grain;  another  the  same;  another  is 
l-324:0th  of  a  grain;  another  l-3888th  of  a  grain;  and  in  the  case  of 
the  brain  it  is  l-16000th  part  of  a  grain.  Then  it  is  l-1944:th  of  a  grain 
in  the  nails;  the  same  in  the  skin,  and  1-5837.  In  the  hair  what? — 
l-6184th. 

So  that  in  every  one  of  these  cases  a  very  minute  error  in  the  original 
measurement  by  the  mirror  would,  of  course,  make  a  very  great  difference 
in  the  ultimate  calculation? — That  is  so. 

And  it  is  only  fair  to  ask  you  on  that  account,  you  have  taken  the 
very  greatest  possible  care  in  your  examination  of  the  mirrors  to  examine 
them  to  the  very  greatest  of  your  ability? — Yes,  I  have  done  my  very 
best. 

Now  I  come  to  what  I  think  is  a  matter  of  more  importance.  You 
have  taken  the  weight  of  the  body  here  as  given.  The  weight  of  the  actual 
body  as  weighed  on  that  day  was  67  Ibs.  2  ounces.  Is  that  right? — That 
was  the  weight  of  the  body. 

When  exhumed — the  total  body? — It  was  a  fortnight  after  exhumation. 

We  have  heard  from  what  Dr.  Spilsbury  has  told  us  that  the  probable 
average  weight  of  a  woman  of  this  height,  and  nourished  as  we  know  she 
was  nourished,  rather  inclined  to  be  on  the  stout  side  than  on  the  thin, 
would  probably  be  about  10£  stone.  Would  you  agree  with  that?  From 
9|  to  10£  stone,  I  think  he  said? — I  think  he  said  from  8  stone. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — 8£  stone? — It  might  be  anything  between 
8J  and  10  stone. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — May  we  take  9  stone  or  10  stone  as  the 
fairly  average  weight  of  the  body  in  life? — I  could  not  say  what  the  weight 
of  the  body  would  be  in  life. 

I  think  it  is  of  great  importance? — I  think  the  body  might  have 
weighed  10  stone  before  the  illness,  but  the  illness  would  cause  a  great 
loss  of  weight. 

I  am  told  it  can  be  proved  that  the  body  was  11  stone  in  weight,  but 
you  would  not  accept  that? — I  would  not  accept  that  it  was  11  stone  at 
the  time  of  the  death. 

Would  you,  if  I  suggest  10  stone,  accept  that  it  may  have  been  10  stone 
at  the  time  of  death? — I  should  say  that  it  was  less  than  that. 

The  woman  measured  5  feet  4  inches  after  death.  That  would  probably 
mean  some  slight  shrinkage? — It  may  be. 

You  would  probably  expect  to  find  another  inch? — Possibly — half  an 
inch. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willeox 

And  we  know  that  she  was  above  what  you  might  call  the  medium 
build.  I  do  not  think  10  stone  would  be  an  unfair  weight  to  take  as  a 
probable  weight? — Not  when  she  was  in  health. 

In  the  case  of  muscle  examination  the  sample  that  you  took  weighed 
six  grammes? — Yes. 

And  you  produce  a  mirror  which  you  diagnose  as  one-thirtieth  part  of 
&  milligramme? — Yes. 

The  multiplying  factor  in  that  case  is  something  enormous,  is  it  not? — 
It  is  very  big. 

It  is  nearly  2000  as  I  work  it  out? — It  would  be  approaching  that. 

In  the  case  of  the  muscles  you  have  no  absolute  weight  by  which  you 
multiply  your  sample,  have  you? — No. 

Because  it  obviously  would  be  impossible  to  extract  from  the  body  all 
the  muscle  so  as  to  compare  the  amount  of  muscle  in  the  body  with  the 
weight  of  a  small  portion  of  muscle  which  you  had  used  as  a  sample  for 
analysis.  It  would  be  impossible? — Yes.  v 

Now  in  the  case  of  the  muscle  I  find  that  the  result  of  your  calculation 
that  in  the  muscle  was  no  less  than  1'03  grain  of  arsenic? — Yes. 

That  is  to  say,  slightly  more — infinitesimally  I  agree,  but  slightly 
more  than  half  the  total  calculated  weight  of  arsenic  in  the  body? — About 
half. 

Now  you  have  worked  upon  the  assumption  that  the  weight  of  the 
muscle  in  the  body  is  equivalent  to  about  two-fifths  of  the  weight  of  the 
body.  That  is  an  accepted  medical  dictum,  is  it  not? — That  is  accepted, 
yes. 

But  this  is  the  relative  calculated  weight  of  muscle  to  body  in  the 
living  body,  is  it  not? — Yes,  or  in  the  dead  body. 

In  the  living  or  the  dead  body — when  dead,  immediately  after  death, 
or  practically  immediately  after  death.  I  will  put  it  to  you  to  make 
myself  perfectly  clear,  the  weight  of  the  body  is  made  up  practically  of 
bone,  organs,  blood,  and  muscle,  is  it  not? — 'Yes. 

And  the  weight  of  all  the  component  parts  of  the  body  is  to  some 
extent  dependent  upon  the  weight  of  water  in  those  parts? — Yes. 

Now,  then,  if  you  have  a  part  of  the  body  which  in  life  or  immediately 
succeeding  death  has  a  known  relative  proportion  to  the  total  weight  of 
the  body,  the  weight  of  the  water  in  the  whole  body  and  of  the  portion, 
including  the  weight  of  water,  both  in  the  portion  and  in  the  whole 
body,  will  be  proportionate.  It  must  be?  That  is  sound,  is  it  not? — 
Yes. 

Now,  in  this  case  you  have  got  a  drying  up  of  the  whole  body  all 
over,  have  you? — Yes,  some  drying. 

The  ratio  of  the  drying  is  quicker  in  the  muscle  than  it  is  in  the 
other  portions  of  the  body? — Not  necessarily. 

But  I  suggest  to  you  that  it  is — the  muscle  contains  '77  of  water? — 
Yes. 

According  to  the  medical  books? — Yes. 

Bone  contains  only  50  per  cent.,  so  that  you  see  the  muscle  would 
lose  water,  assuming  that  they  are  all  losing  at  the  same  rate,  in  a 
greater  proportion;  that  is  in  the  proportion  of  77  to  50  over  the  loss  in 

121 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

the  bone? — I  agree  with  you  as  regards  bone,  but  not  as  regards  other 
organs. 

But  -what  proportion  to  the  weight  of  the  body  does  the  bone  have? — 
A  considerable  proportion. 

I  would  sooner  take  it  from  you  than  make  a  guess.  What  do  you 
say? — I  forget  the  exact  figure. 

Anyhow,  it  is  a  very  considerable  proportion,  and  then,  of  course, 
there  is  the  loss  of  water  in  the  organs? — The  organs  would  have  less, 
water  as  a  result. 

The  propoi'tion  would  not  be  altered  in  the  case  of  the  organs? — 
No. 

But  in  the  case  of  the  bone  you  admit  there  ought  to  have  been  an 
allowance  made? — I  admit  there  is  a  difference  as  regards  the  water 
contained. 

The  bones  dry  very  slowly,  do  they  not? — They  dry  slowly,  yes. 

And  I  am  sure  it  was  an  oversight,  I  mean,  I  may  be  wrong,  but  in 
making  this  calculation  you  have  made  no  allowance  whatever  for  the 
loss  of  water? — No,  I  have  not. 

Do  you  not  think  you  ought  to  have  made  some  allowance? — Well, 
the  calculation  of  muscle  must  only  be  approximate. 

Yes? — I  have  estimated  it  at  one  grain. 

That  is  to  say,  taking  the  whole  weight  of  the  muscle  in  the  body 
as  two-fifths  of  the  weight  of  the  body? — Yes,  but  I  admit  that  must  only 
be  approximate. 

And,  of  course,  as  the  water  increased  out  of  the  muscle  dispro- 
portionately to  the  bone,  so  the  multiplying  factor  is  unduly  increased? — 
Making  that  allowance  for  the  reduced  quantity. 

If  you  make  the  allowance  that  I  suggest  ought  to  be  made,  the 
effect  of  it  would  be  to  slightly  reduce  it? — To  slightly  reduce  the  amount. 

To  slightly  reduce  the  quantity  given? — Yes.  I  do  not  claim  this 
one  to  be  strictly  accurate,  because  it  must  be  approximate  from  the 
method  which  was  used  because  of  the  multiplying  factor  being  so  great. 

Whereas  in  the  case  of  the  skin  you  have  appreciated  the  difficulty 
to  such  an  extent  that  you  do  not  profess  to  make  a  quantitative  experi- 
ment?— No. 

Using  it  honestly,  to  the  best  of  your  ability,  it  is  only  an  approxi- 
mate calculation  that  you  have  arrived  at  in  regard  to  the  amount  of 
arsenic  in  the  body? — That  is  so. 

And,  of  course,  that  is  most  important  from  the  point  of  view  with 
regard  to  the  mirror  of  the  muscle,  because  as  far  as  the  mirror  of  the 
muscle  goes,  the  multiplying  factor  is  enormous — close  upon  2000,  and 
so  far  as  the  multiple  is  concerned  it  is  practically  50  per  cent,  of  the 
total  calculation? — Oh,  yes,  the  total  quantity  in  the  water. 

It  is  important  from  both  points  of  view.  With  the  mirror  used 
the  multiplying  factor  is  2000.  Do  you  think  you  arrive  at  that 
quantity? — Yes. 

It  has  a  most  important  effect,  because  the  result  of  it  is  to  bring 
out  50  per  cent,  of  the  total  calculated  arsenic  in  the  body? — Yes,  I 
asrree. 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

Now,  I  want  to  come  to  another  matter  altogether.  You  are  con- 
vinced, Dr.  Willcox,  that  this  is  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning. 
That  is  your  honest  opinion? — I  have  no  doubt  about  it. 

Did  you  examine  the  hair?  I  notice  that  in  the  table  which  you 
prepared  you  give  only  an  examination  of  '4.  of  a  gramme  of  what  is 
called  proximal  hair — that  is  the  hair  nearest  the  scalp? — Yes. 

And  the  hair  which  grows  at  the  extremity  is  called  the  distal  end? — 
Yes. 

You  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  examine  the  distal  end  of  that? — Yes, 
I  did. 

•In  the  proximal  end  the  mirror  showed  one-eightieth  out  of  *4  of 
a  gramme,  which  is  approximately  slightly  less  than  you  found  in  the 
heart.  You  found  in  the  heart  one-sixtieth  of  a  milligramme,  and  in 
the  proximal  end  of  the  hair  you  found  one-eightieth  of  a  milligramme? 
—Yes. 

What  did  you  find  in  the  distal  end  of  the  hair? — One  three- 
thousandth — about  a  quarter  as  much. 

You  took  a  length  of  hair  which  was  about  12  inches,  I  think? — 
They  varied.  I  should  say  the  average  would  be  about  10  inches. 

And  in  order  that  you  should  have  a  proper  examination  you  took 
3  inches  from  the  distal  end  and  3  inches  from  the  other  end.  Is  that 
so — from  the  proximal  end? — Yes. 

In  the  proximal  end  you  found  one-eightieth  of  a  milligramme,  and 
in  the  distal  end  one  three-hundredth? — Yes. 

Was  this  not  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  of  investigation 
in  the  Royal  Commission,  arsenic  in  the  hair? — Yes. 

And  especially  the  length  of  time  during  which  the  arsenic  must 
have  been  taken  before  you  find  it  there.  That  was  one  of  the  great 
subjects  of  the  Commission,  was  it  not? — That  was  one  of  them. 

In  the  report  they  prepared  exhaustive  tables  dealing  with  the  ques- 
tion of  hair  only.  If  you  look  at  the  second  volume  of  the  report, 
right  at  the  end  of  page  377,  you  will  find  a  very  careful  report  prepared 
of  the  experiments,  dealing  only  with  hair.  Now,  will  you  please  check 
me  for  a  moment.  Taking,  as  I  understand  you  did,  the  quantity  that 
you  did,  I  worked  it  out  that  the  hair  chips,  we  will  call  them,  the 
distal  end  contained  one-eightieth  of  a  grain  of  arsenious  acid,  and  the 
hair  roots  contained  one-fifth  of  a  grain  of  arsenious  acid? — Between 
one-fourth  and  one-fifth,  yes. 

Do  you  agree  that  in  all  cases  of  the  finding  of  arsenic  in  the  body 
or  the  presence  of  arsenic  in  the  system,  you  have  to  make  allowance 
for  the  possibility  of  small  quantities  of  arsenic  being  received  from  more 
than  one  source  of  food  and  drink.  I  am  reading  from  the  report  of 
the  Royal  Commission? — You  have  to  bear  in  mind  the  possibility.  That 
possibility  is  very  much  less  now  than  it  was  at  the  time  that  the  report 
was  written,  because  so  very  much  more  care  is  taken  over  food  stuffs. 

But  still  these  very  minute  quantities  of  arsenic  are  contained  in 
various  kinds  of  food? — There  may  be  very  minute  amounts,  but  the 
amount  is  one  one-hundredth  of  a  grain  to  a  gallon,  and  one  one-hundredth 
of  a  grain  in  1  Ib. 

"3 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

DP.  William  Henry  Willcox 

Now,  I  come  to  this  question  of  the  hair.  That  was  made  the  sub- 
ject of  a  very  careful  report,  and  there  is  an  appendix  to  this  report 
which  sets  out  all  the  experiments  on  hair.  "  Out  of  a  total  of  41  con- 
trolled cases,  principally  hospital  and  infirmary,  &c."  (reading  down  to 
the  words)  "  male  patients  who  had  been  taking  3  minims  of  arsenic 
three  times  a  day,  about  one-tenth  of  a  grain  of  arsenic  daily,  at  the 
«nd  of  two  months  showed  amounts  of  arsenic  varying  from  one-twentieth 
to  one-fifth  of  a  grain  per  1  Ib.  of  hair,  which  had  grown  during  the 
interval."  That  is  obviously  so,  is  it  not?  The  position  of  arsenic  in 
the  hair  would  not  alter  after  death? — It  would  not  alter  after  death. 

The  metabolic  changes  cease — you  get  no  alteration  in  the  amount 
of  arsenic? — No. 

So  when  the  arsenic  goes  to  the  hair  it  first  goes  to  the  piece  of 
hair  nearest  to  the  root  as  it  grows? — Yes. 

Then  as  time  goes  on  it  pushes  further  up? — I  do  not  think  we  can 
«ay  that — that  it  is  an  exact  limitation  of  the  arsenic.  The  bulk  of  it 
deposits  in  the  hair  at  the  time  it  is  taken,  but  probably  there  is  a  little 
may  get  up  to  the  hair.  The  bulk  of  it  remains. 

Practically — roughly  speaking — for  practical  purposes  it  only  gets 
in  during  the  growth  of  the  hair? — It  gets  in  during  the  growth. 

What  I  am  putting  to  you  is  that  the  presence  of  that  quantity  of 
arsenic  in  the  distal  portions  of  this  hair,  according  to  the  Schedule  of 
Cases  that  was  made  upon  this  Arsenic  Commission,  demonstrate  that 
this  arsenic  in  the  case  of  Miss  Barrow  must  have  been  taken  for  a 
period  exceeding  two  or  three  months? — No,  I  do  not  admit  that. 

I  will  give  you  the  specific  figure  in  a  moment.  "  Male  patients 
taking  smaller  amounts  of  arsenic  medicinally,  &c."  (reading  to  the 
words)  "  which  had  grown  before  the  demonstration  of  arsenic  at  the 
time."  That  would,  of  course,  make  a  difference  for  the  purpose  of 
examination  ? — Yes. 

Now,   you  took  only  3   inches  of  the  distal  end? — Yes. 

If  the  presence  of  arsenic  in  the  distal  end  of  the  hair  is  evidence 
of  a  lengthy  period  of  arsenic-taking,  the  period  is  probably  longer  accord- 
ing to  the  quantity  found  in  the  distal  end  of  the  hair? — Yes,  that  would 
be  so. 

Now,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  quantity  in  the  distal  end 
of  the  hair  you  will  get  a  much  more  concentrated  result  if  you  take  the 
last  3  inches  than  you  would  if  you  took  the  last  9  inches.  Do  you 
follow  what  I  mean? — I  do  not. 

Because  if  you  take  9  inches  you  may  have  arsenic  in  the  whole  of 
it,  whereas  if  you  took  only  3  inches  it  must  be  in  the  last  3  inches  that 
you  find  the  arsenic.  Do  you  follow  what  I  mean? — I  think  it  is  rather 
the  other  way  round,  is  it  not? 

For  the  purpose  of  examination,  if  you  found  it  in  the  last  3  inches 
you  would  probably  find  more  in  the  next  6  inches — the  6  inches  near 
the  roots? — Yes. 

That  is   what  I   mean.     So  that  if  you  are  taking   9  inches,    your 
probable  average  of  the  9  inches  would  be  a  higher  average  than  it  would 
be  for  the  last  3  inches? — Yes. 
124 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

/ 

DP.  William  Henry  Willcox 

I  only  wanted  this  for  the  purposes  of  comparison  in  the  cases  reported. 
They  only  deal,  I  think  it  is,  with  6  inches,  whereas  in  your  case  you 
take  the  3  extreme  inches? — Yes. 

I  see  on  page  349  of  the  Commission  report  you  find  a  table  in  the 
appendix  No  32,  "Arsenic  in  the  hair."  You  find  there  in  the  top 
column  the  amount  of  arsenic  in  grains  of  arsenious  oxide  per  1  Ib.  of 
hair,  and  I  am  dealing  with  the  cases  given  here.  There  are  three  here, 
I  see,  where  arsenic  has  been  taken  for  more  than  five  weeks.  First  of 
all  there  is  "No  arsenic  taken."  Then,  "Arsenic  taken  in  larger  or 
smaller  doses  for  five  weeks  or  less."  I  am  disregarding  that.  Now, 
"  Arsenic  taken  for  more  than  five  weeks  in  the  whole  length."  You 
find  that  in  the  middle? — Yes,  I  see. 

I  will  try  and  put  it  generally  as  nearly  as  I  can.  Is  this  the  result 
of  it — that  in  the  five  cases  who  took  arsenic  for  more  than  five  weeks 
the  tips  were  found  free  of  arsenic  in  one  of  the  three  cases,  and  con- 
tained one  two-hundred-and-fiftieth  of  a  grain  per  1  Ib.  in  one  case  and1 
below  one  two-hundred-and-fiftieth  of  a  grain  per  1  Ib.  in  the  other  caset 
—Yes. 

So  that  you  see  even  in  the  case  of  people  who  have  taken  arsenic 
for  more  than  five  weeks,  in  three  different  cases  you  only  have  one  two- 
hundred-and-fiftieth  of  a  grain  per  1  Ib.  from  the  distal  end,  and  in  the 
other  case  it  is  not  even  fully  that.  Now,  what  is  the  rate  of  growth 
per  year  of  the  hair — about  6  inches,  is  it  not? — It  would  be  about  that. 
Is  there  any  evidence  of  any  metabolic  change  in  grown  hair — hair 
when  it  is  once  grown? — There  is  very  little  evidence  of  what  I  call  living 
change.  It  is  disputed.  You  mean  hair  on  the  living  body? 

Yes,  hair  on  the  living  body? — There  is  probably  not  a  great  change. 
Dr.  Mann  is  a  great  authority  on  it? — Yes. 

He  was  giving  his  evidence  on  page  139,  and  I  see  his  answer  is, 
"  I  suppose  when  the  arsenic  gets  into  the  arterial  structures  it  would 
be  likely  to  remain  there,"  &c.  That  would  be  the  case  of  hair,  would  it 
not? — Probably  there  is  not  much  metabolic  change. 

I  will  take  it  at  that — it  is  so  small  as  to  be  practically  negligible? — 
It  is  not  much. 

Now,  look  at  case  No.  63,  where  the  patient  has  been  taking  arsenic 
for  a  longer  period  than  five  weeks.  They  tested  the  three  samples  of 
hair  in  the  whole  length  in  one  case,  in  the  roots  in  one  case,  and  in  the 
tips  in  one  case.  They  found  in  that  case,  did  they  not,  one-fiftieth  of 
a  grain  per  1  Ib.? — That  is  in  the  tips. 

You  will  find  that  on  page  358  of  that  report,  case  63,  where  it  is 
all  set  out  absolutely  in  detail.  It  is  a  case  taken  from  the  Lambeth 
Infirmary,  and  they  give  the  age  and  the  name  of  the  deceased,  and  this 
is  what  he  had  been  taking — 12  minims  daily  for  five  days,  from  the 
23rd  to  the  28th  of  October.  Then  it  is  discontinued  for  ten  days, 
from  the  28th  of  October  to  the  7th  of  November.  Then  12  minims 
daily  for  twenty  days,  from  the  8th  to  28th  November.  Then  discon- 
tinued forty-nine  days,  from  the  29th  November  to  the  16th  January.. 

125 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Wllleox 

So  you  see  there  had  been  a  taking  of  arsenic  for  a  period  of  nearly  three 
months  prior? — Yes. 

Now,  they  found  there  one-eightieth  of  a  grain  in  the  roots — I  am 
talking  of  the  same  relative  weights — and  one-fortieth  of  a  grain  in  the 
tips,  but  the  tips  were  of  9-inch  length.  From  that  do  you  not  think 
that  the  conclusion  is  justified  that  you  do  not  and  never  will  find  arsenic 
in  the  distal  end  of  the  hair  unless  the  taking  of  the  arsenic  has  been 
spread  over  some  considerable  period? — Generally,  when  arsenic  has 
been  found  in  the  tips  of  the  hair,  there  has  been  some  taken  for  some 
period  before. 

Can  you  point  to  any  recorded  case  in  which  arsenic  has  been  found  in 
the  distal  tips  of  the  hair  unless  arsenic  has  been  taken  for  a  period 
exceeding  ten  weeks? — In  this  report  it  says  that  arsenic  is  found  in  the 
hair  in  people  who  have  never  had  arsenic. 

I  am  talking  of  the  distal  end  of  the  hair  right  at  the  end? — That 
would  certainly  refer  to  the  distal  end. 

I  am  talking  of  arsenic  to  this  extent. — This  is  one-twenty-fifth  of  a 
grain  in  1  Ib. 

I  refer  to  page  13  of  the  final  report.  That  is  where  they  are  taking 
no  arsenic  medicinally,  but  it  did  not  follow  that  they  had  not  been  taking 
arsenic  from  a  contaminated  source  ? — As  far  as  was  known  they  were  taking 
no  arsenic. 

No  arsenic  was  being  given  medicinally,  and  in  one  case  one-twenty- 
fifth  of  a  grain  was  the  largest  amount  found  per  1  Ib.? — Yes. 

There  were  three  cases,  one  of  one-hundredth  of  a  grain,  one  of  one- 
fiftieth  of  a  grain,  and  one  of  one-twenty-fifth  of  a  grain  per  1  Ib.  ? — Yes. 

Was  not  that  used  as  an  argument,  or  rather  as  a  proof  that  they 
had  been  taking  arsenic  over  a  long  period  of  time,  or  else  they  would 
not  have  shown  it  in  the  distal  end  of  the  hair?  The  inference  drawn 
from  that  in  the  report  was  that,  although  they  had  not  been  given 
medicinal  doses  of  arsenic,  they  must  have  been  having  arsenic  from  con- 
taminated beer? — Not  necessarily  from  contaminated  beer.  Sometimes 
arsenic  may  be  present  in  what  is  called  normal  hair  in  small  amounts. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  you  cannot  get  what  you  admit  there  was  in  this 
case,  that  it  is  one-eighteenth  of  a  grain  in  1  Ib.  in  the  distal  end  of  the 
hair,  unless  there  has  been  the  taking  of  arsenic  over  a  long  period? — 
That  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  arsenic  had  been  taken  over  a  long 
period.  It  is  possible  that  some  arsenic  might  have  been  taken  at  some 
previous  period. 

Is  the  finding  of  the  arsenic  in  the  hair  corroborative  of  acute  arsenical 
poisoning  or  of  chronic  arsenic-taking? — If  arsenic  is  found  in  the  hair 
it  indicates  that  probably  the  arsenic  had  been  taken  for  some  period. 

I  am  sure  you  will  give  me  a  fair  answer.  Apart  from  all  other 
symptoms,  or  any  other  question,  if  you  only  find  arsenic  in  the  hair, 
you  would  take  that  as  being  a  symptom  of  a  prolonged  course  of  arsenic? 
— Of  a  course  of  arsenic  over  some  period. 

And  the  minimum  period  would  be  something  about  three  months? 

I  think  that. 
126 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

DP.  William  Henry  Willcox 

Ten  weeks  to  three  months? — I  think  in  less  than  that  there  would 
be  arsenic  in  the  proximal  portion  of  the  hair. 

In  the  proximal  portion,  but  not  in  the  distal  portion.  You  would 
not  expect  to  find  it  in  the  distal  end  in  three  months,  would  you? — Not 
in  large  amounts. 

Not  in  the  amount  you  have  got  here — one-eighteenth  of  a  grain  per 
1  Ib.  That  is  a  comparatively  large  amount  for  the  distal  end? — This 
one-eighteenth  of  a  grain  in  the  distal  end  might  possibly  mean  some 
arsenic  might  have  been  taken,  perhaps  a  year  or  more  ago.  It  does 
not  mean  that  the  taking  of  the  arsenic  had  continued — had  been  going 
on  continuously  from  that  time. 

That  it  meant  it  had  been  going  on  continuously  or  not  continuously? 
—No. 

That  is  to  say,  it  might  have  been  taken  and  left  off  possibly? — That 
there  might  possibly  have  been  some  taken,  say,  a  year  ago  or  more 
than  a  year  ago. 

A  year  ago  or  more? — More  than  a  year  ago. 

The  presence  of  arsenic  in  the  distal  end  of  the  hair  is  indicative 
probably  of  the  taking  of  arsenic  more  than  twelve  months  ago? — 
Probably. 

But  it  does  not  in  any  way  affect  your  opinion  as  to  the  poisonous  dose 
and  the  actual  poison  that  you  found  in  the  other  portions  of  the  body? 
— Not  in  the  least. 

As  the  result  of  your  information  do  you  incline  to  the  opinion  that 
it  was  one  fatal  dose  or  more  than  one  dose? — One  fatal  dose  within  the 
last  three  days. 

But  do  you  think,  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  we  know  this 
woman  had  been  suffering  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  for  certainly  eleven 
days,  that  the  administration  of  a  large  dose  of  arsenic  in  the  early 
part  of  those  days  would  not  have  proved  fatal? — It  is  possible  that  the 
svmptoms  may  have  been  due  to  arsenic. 

Do  you  suggest  that  it  was  possible  that  there  was  a  series  of  doses? 
— It  is  possible. 

But  do  you  incline  to  that  opinion  as  a  result  of  a  considered  con- 
sideration of  this  case? — I  think  it  is  possible  that  the  symptoms  might 
have  been  due  from  arsenic  throughout  the  illness. 

You  go  as  far  as  that,  that  this  may  have  been  a  constant  administra- 
tion of  arsenic? — There  might  have  been. 

That  was  not  the  opinion  you  expressed  before  the  magistrate? — I 
said  it  might  have  been. 

Therefore  the  doses  would  have  had  to  have  been  very  small  or  they 
would  have  proved  fatal  more  quickly,  would  they  not,  than  small  doses? 
— If  it  had  been  taken. 

If  it  be  the  result  of  a  series  of  doses,  the  earlier  doses  must  have 
been  small,  because,  of  course,  it  would  not  be  cumulative  except  as  an 
irritant,  would  it? — It  would  not  be  cumulative. 

Because  of  the  expulsion  by  the  faeces  and  by  the  urine? — Yes. 

So  that  a  small  dose  of  arsenic — not  a  fatal  dose  or  approximating 

127 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

to  a  fatal  dose — would  probably  be  expelled  in  one  form  or  another  either 
by  the  sickness  or  the  diarrhoea? — Yes. 

And  would  be  non-efficient  so  far  as  the  fatal  result  is  concerned? — 
No. 

It  would  be  non-efficient.  Would  it  prepare  the  system  for  a  fatal 
effect  from  a  similar  dose.  Do  you  mean  that? — If  a  dose  were  given  or 
were  taken  to  produce  symptoms  of  poisoning,  then  another  dose  would 
have  a  greater  effect  than  if  the  patient  had  not  had  the  previous  dose. 

Even  the  elimination  would  not  counteract  that? — No. 

But  as  a  cumulative  poison  arsenic  is  not  known — as  a  cumulative 
poison? — No. 

It  is  not  like  lead  and  those  class  of  poisons  which  are  known  to  be 
cumulative  ? — No. 

The  elimination  of  arsenic  in  the  system  by  the  natural  means  is 
very  rapid? — Yes. 

Taking  all  probabilities,  which  do  you  incline  to — that  it  was  a 
case  of  an  administration  of  a  small  dose  culminating  in  the  larger  dose, 
or  that  it  was  the  taking — when  I  say  administration  I  mean  taking,  I 
am  not  dealing  with  the  question  of  administration  by  another  person — 
was  it  the  taking  of  a  series  of  small  doses  or  the  taking  of  one  large, 
fatal  dose  at  the  end?  Which  of  the  two  opinions  do  you  incline  to? — I 
can  only  speak  with  certainty  as  to  the  taking  of  a  large  dose  during  the 
last  two  days. 

But  under  no  circumstances  would  you — if  it  had  been  administered 
for  ten  days,  if  arsenic  had  been  taken  for  ten  days — under  no  circum- 
stances would  you  expect  to  find  arsenic  in  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair, 
that  being  the  only  administration  of  arsenic  given? — I  should  not 
expect  to  find  it  in  the  distal  part  of  the  hair  in  the  ten  days,  but  it  is 
possible  that  there  might  be  some  in  the  distal  end,  because  it  says 
in  this  report  that  sometimes  arsenic  is  found  in  the  hair. 

Yes,  but  that  is  the  point  I  have  been  dealing  with.  The  growth 
takes  place  near  the  scalp.  There  is  no  metabolic  change  in  the  hair. 
It  is  an  obscure  theory? — We  do  not  know  all  about  the  changes  which 
go  on  in  the  hair. 

Dr.  Mann  is  a  great  authority  upon  it? — Yes,  the  greatest  authority. 

His  view  is  that  the  arsenic  does  not  move  with  the  metabolic  changes, 
and  you  agree  with  me  that  the  metabolic  changes  in  the  top  of  the  hair 
would  be  practically  nothing? — Yes.  There  is  one  point  which  I  have 
not  mentioned,  which  I  ought  to  mention  here,  which  rather  affects  these 
results,  and  that  is  that  when  I  took  the  hair  for  analysis  it  was  at  the 
second  examination,  and  the  hair  had  been  lying  in  the  coffin,  and  it 
was  more  or  less  soaked  in  the  juice  of  the  body. 

Yes,  but  you  washed  it — you  washed  it  carefully? — I  washed  it,  and 
I  washed  off  anything  that  was  on  the  surface,  but  it  is  possible  that 
some  soakage  may  have  occurred  in  spite  of  the  washing,  so  that  the 
results  are  a  little  higher  than  they  would  have  been  if  the  hair  had  been 
taken  dry.  That  opinion  is  borne  out  by  the  analysis  of  the  hair  from 
the  undertaker;  the  figure  came  lower. 

Do  you  seriously  suggest  really  that,  with  all  the  care  you  took,. 
128 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willeox 

there  may  have  been  some  arsenic  from  outside  which  had  got  into  that 
hair  before  you  examined  it? — No,  I  mean  in  the  coffin. 

But  surely  in  a  case  of  this  importance,  and  the  examinations  that 
have  to  be  made,  if  there  was  any  possibility  that  after  washing  any 
external  arsenic  could  have  been  soaked  into  the  hair  why  examine  it  at 
rj}? — There  was  no  external  arsenic,  only  some  may  possibly  have  soaked 
into  the  hair. 

But  if  there  was  a  possibility  of  a  soakage  otherwise  than  by  natural 
means,  why  examine  it  at  all?  Why  not  disregard  it  at  once?  And  then 
you  have  taken  the  trouble  not  only  to  examine,  but  you  have  made  a 
report  upon  it,  and  you  have  actually  calculated  it  out  according  to  the 
ratio  of  weight  in  grains  to  the  Ib.  of  hair,  and  you  evidently  attach 
great  importance  to  it.  I  do  not  think  it  is  quite  fair  to  put  upon  me 
now  that  that  examination  may  be  stultified  by  the  fact  that  some  por- 
tion of  arsenic  may  have  got  into  the  hair  from  outside? — I  mentioned 
that  because  I  ought  to  give  you  the  figures  of  the  other  specimen  of  hair. 

Of  course,  you  will  give  it  to  me.  I  have  no  other  figures  except 
your  figures  to  work  upon.  I  did  not  know  that  they  had  been  separately 
examined? — The  other  was  one-twenty-first  of  a  grain  to  1  Ib.  That  was 
mixed  hair. 

That  is  hair  that  was  taken,  of  course,  just  after  death? — Yes. 

Assuming  that  this  lady  had  taken  arsenic  medicinally,  would  that 
make  the  effect  of  gastro  enteritis  more  serious  to  her  or  not? — It  depends 
upon  the  amount  which  had  been  taken.  If  it  had  been  taken  medicin- 
ally as  a  tonic  it  probably  would  not  have  any  effect  upon  the  gastro 
enteritis.  If  it  had  been  taken  in  amounts  to  cause  irritation  of  the 
stomach,  then  obviously  the  gastro  enteritis  would  increase. 

Just  in  the  same  way  that,  as  arsenic  would  accentuate  gastro  enteritis, 
so  gastro  enteritis  would  accentuate  the  effect  of  arsenic? — Yes. 

Now,  you  agree,  do  you  not,  that  from  all  Dr.  Sworn  could  see,  his 
certificate  was  fully  justified? — Yes. 

I  want  to  put  a  proposition  to  you.  Of  course,  the  theory  of  the 
prosecution  is — it  is  a  theory — that  one  or  both  of  these  persons  was 
administering  arsenic  to  the  deceased  person  with  the  intention  of  killing 
her,  and,  in  fact,  killed  her,  during  this  period  preceding  her  death.  Do 
you  not  think  it  would  be  a  highly  dangerous  thing  for  anybody  having 
regard  to  his  or  her  safety  to  be  doing  a  thing  like  that,  with  a  medical 
man  coming  in  daily?  Do  you  not  think  so? — Do  you  mean  the  possibility 
of  detection? 

I  mean  the  possibility  of  detection? — There  would  be  some  risk. 

Now,  in  the  present  day,  when  we  have  got  the  present  advance  of 
medicine,  the  examination,  and  the  minute  examination,  of  faeces  or  of 
urine  is  a  common  practice  for  the  purpose  of  diagnosis  ? — It  is  a  common 
practice,  but  not  an  analysis  for  arsenic.  That  is  a  very  unusual  thing. 

I  am  not  talking  of  an  analysis  for  arsenic.  Could  they  not  detect 
it  by  any  process  short  of  analysis? — No. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  that  that  is  known  to  the  ordinary  person,  that 
you  cannot  detect  arsenic  either  in  the  faeces  or  in  the  urine,  or  in  the 
vomit,  except  by  analysis? — No.  Except  by  a  special  analysis.  I  cannot 
1  129 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

suggest  -what  this  meant  to  an  ordinary  person.       That  is  the  fact,  that 
it  cannot  be  detected  except  by  a  special  analysis. 

But  supposing  this  arsenic  had  been  given,  if  there  had  been  an 
analysis  of  vomit,  urine,  or  faeces,  it  would  have  clearly  demonstrated  the 
presence  of  arsenic  in  the  system? — If  there  had  been  an  analysis  for 
arsenic.  The  ordinary  examination  of  the  urine  would  not  deal  with 
the  question  of  whether  arsenic  was  present  or  not. 

Is  it  a  matter  of  universal  medical  knowledge  that  the  symptoms  of 
arsenical  poisoning  and  of  chronic  diarrhoea  are  identical.  Is  that  a 
matter  of  common  medical  knowledge? — Yes. 

Surely  in  these  days  of  advanced  medical  science,  if  a  doctor  found 
a  case  of  chronic  diarrhoea  did  not  yield  to  the  proper  treatment,  he  would 
immediately  have  the  evacuation  analysed  with  a  view  of  testing  for  arsenic  ? 
— He  would  not  do  so  unless  he  suspected  arsenic. 

The  mere  fact  of  these  symptoms  not  yielding  to  ordinary  treatment? 
— Certainly  not.  In  many  of  these  cases  of  diarrhoea  they  may  go  on  for 
two  or  three  weeks.  It  would  not  follow  that  the  doctor  would  have 
the  urine  and  the  fa3ces  examined  for  arsenic. 

In  a  case  of  diarrhoea  and  sickness  brought  on  by  arsenical  poison- 
ing, would  you  expect  to  find  that  the  medicines  which  were  given,  such 
us  bismuth  and  chalk  mixture,  would  have  any  beneficial  effect  upon  the 
patient — I  mean  the  illness  being  due  to  arsenical  poisoning? — They 
would  have  a  beneficial  effect. 

As  great  >o.s  if  the  illness  were  chronic  diarrhoea? — I  do  not  think  one 
could  possibly  say.  They  would  have  a  beneficial  effect.  Of  course,  if 
a  large  close  of  arsenic  were  taken  it  would  produce  poisonous  symptoms. 

You  know  Dr.  Sworn  did  see  this  woman  at  eleven  o'clock  on  the 
morning  of  Wednesday,  the  13th,  and  she  died  on  the  early  morning 
of  Thursday,  at  six  o'clock — she  died  on  the  early  morning  .of  the  14th? — 
Yes. 

He  saw  her  at  eleven  o'clock,  and  he  has  told  us  what  he  found. 
Do  you  suggest  it  is  possible  that  at  that  time,  or  within  a  short  distance 
of  that  time,  she  had  been  given  a  fatal  dose  of  arsenic? — I  said  within 
two  days  the  dose  was  given. 

Do  you  really  ask  the  jury  to  accept  the  theory  that  at  the  time 
Dr.  Sworn  saw  her  on  the  morning  of  Wednesday,  at  eleven  o'clock,  she 
may  then  have  had  in  her  a  fatal  dose  of  arsenic? — She  may  have  had 
some  arsenic  in  her. 

But  surely,  with  the  diarrhoea  that  was  going  on,  it  must  have  been 
a  very  large  dose? — She  may  have  had  some  arsenic  after  Dr.  Sworn 
saw  her. 

In  which  case,  if  it  had  been  a  large  dose  before  Dr.  Sworn  saw  her, 
you  would  have  expected  Dr.  Sworn  to  have  found  some  of  the  effects 
of  that  dose? — He  would  have  found  diarrhoea  and  sickness. 

Indistinguishable  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  and  sickness? — Indis- 
tinguishable from  epidemic  diarrhoea. 

Re-examined   by  the   ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You   have   told  us  that  a 
doctor,   in  your  view,   could  not   detect  the  presence  of   arsenic,   having 
the  fseces  and  urine,  unless  he  made  a  special  analysis.     What  kind  of 
130 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willeox 

analysis  do  you  mean  by  that? — A  special  analysis  for  arsenic,   such  as 
was  made  on  these  remains  by  a  specialist  using  special  tests  for  arsenic. 

Which  you  made  in  the  post-mortem  examination? — Yes,  a  doctor  in 
ordinary  practice  would  not  have  the  apparatus  required  for  making 
such  an  examination.  A  specimen  would  have  to  be  sent  to  an  analyst. 

Supposing  a  doctor  were  attending  a  patient  thirteen  days  for  epidemic 
diarrhoea,  in  the  circumstances  described  by  Dr.  Sworn,  without  suspecting 
that  there  was  any  arsenic  being  administered,  in  your  view  would  you 
expect  him  to  make  any  such  special  analysis? — No. 

Supposing  arsenic  had  been  given  to  Miss  Barrow  about  the  1st  or 
2nd  September  and  the  treatment  during  the  next  few  days  had  been 
carbonate  and  bismuth,  and  subsequently  the  effervescing  mixture  which 
was  described,  might  that  have  a  beneficial  effect  upon  the  patient? — Yes. 

Assuming  the  dose  was  not  too  large,  might  the  patient  recover? — 
Certainly. 

And  if  the  patient  was  recovering  would  the  symptoms  of  vomiting, 
diarrhoea,  and  pains  gradually  cease? — Yes. 

I  understand  you  to  say,  in  answer  to  my  friend,  the  last  dose,  which 
was  described  as  the  fatal  dose,  must  in  your  view  have  been  given  within 
two  days — that  is  what  you  said  last? — Yes. 

Are  you  able  to  fix  the  minimum  time  within  the  two  days  that  the 
arsenic  may  have  been  administered? — I  cannot  fix  it,  but  it  might  have 
been  given  within  a  few  hours  of  death. 

There  is  nothing  which  enables  you  to  say  more  precisely  than  that? — 
No,  I  would  not  be  more  precise  than  to  say  within  two  days. 

I  just  want  to  get  it  clear  if  I  can  what  your  view  is  about  the  hair. 
First  of  all,  you  told  my  friend  you  had  made  two  analyses  of  hair? — Yes. 

And  one,  you  said,  which  was  of  mixed  hair  taken  just  after  death, 
gave  the  one-twenty-first  part  of  a  grain? — Yes. 

What  do  you  mean  by  "  mixed  hair  "  ? — I  did  not  know  whether  it 
was  at  the  tip  or  the  root.  Probably  it  would  not  be  cut  off  very  close  to 
the  skin.  It  was  perhaps  the' middle  of  the  hair  and  the  end. 

It  was  hair  which  had  been  cut  off,  and  which  had  been  given  to  you 
for  the  purposes  of  analysis? — Yes. 

You  did  not  see  it  cut? — No. 

And  then  the  other  analysis  which  you  made  was  of  hair  which  you 
yourself  took  in  the  post-mortem  examination? — Yes. 

You  have  been  asked  a  good  many  questions  about  what  you  found 
in  the  hair.  Have  you  taken  any  quantity  of  arsenic  from  the  hair  in  your 
calculation  of  2'01  grains  found  in  the  body? — No,  none  at  all. 

I  mean,  whether  it  is  from  the  proximal  end  or  the  distal  end  for  the 
purposes  of  that  figure  is  quite  immaterial? — Yes. 

Supposing  you  have  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning,  and  you 
examine  the  hair,  would  it  be  possible  to  find  any  trace  of  arsenic  in  the 
distal  end  as  well  as  in  the  proximal  end? — The  bulk  of  the  arsenic  would 
be  found  in  the  proximinal  end. 

Clearly  the  bulk  would,  but  would  there  be  any  trace  found  in  the 
distal  end? — Yes,  there  might  be  some  trace  of  arsenic  in  the  distal  end, 
but  that  trace  may  very  possibly  have  got  in  before  the  arsenic  was  taken. 

I  understand  you  did  find  some  arsenic  in  the  distal  end? — Yes. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

DP.  William  Henry  Willcox 

Does  that  in  any  way  affect  your  view  that  this  death  was  due  to 
acute  arsenical  poisoning? — Not  in  the  very  slightest. 

Why? — Because  there  was  a  considerable  quantity  of  arsenic  in  the 
stomach — one-tenth  of  a  grain;  there  was  nearly  two-thirds  of  a  grain  in 
the  intestines,  and  that  arsenic  must  have  got  in  within  two  days  of  death ; 
and  the  amount  in  the  liver. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Your  reason,  or  one  of  your  reasons, 
perhaps  your  chief  reason,  as  I  understand,  for  saying  that  this  woman  had 
had  this  fatal  dose  of  arsenic  administered  within  two  days  of  her  death 
is  because  of  the  amount  of  arsenic  which  you  found  in  the  stomach  and 
the  intestines? — Yes,  that  is  the  chief  reason. 

And  your  opinion  is  not  altered  at  all  because  of  arsenic  found  in  the 
hair? — Not  in  the  slightest. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Would  the  finding  of  that  amount  in  the 
intestines  and  the  stomach,  in  your  view,  show  that  it  was  acute  arsenical 
poisoning  or  chronic  arsenical  poisoning? — There  cannot  be  the  slightest 
doubt  as  to  this  being  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning. 

Can  you  tell  me  whether  a  gentleman  skilled  in  medicine  came  to  you 
from  the  defence  during  the  course  of  this  case? — Yes,  Dr.  Rosenheim,  a 
physiological  chemist. 

And  did  you  show  him  the  mirrors  which  you  had  made? — Yes. 

Did  you  show  him  the  standard  mirrors? — Yes. 

Did  you  show  him  the  results  which  you  had  got? — I  showed  him 
everything,  yes.  We  went  together  through  all  the  mirrors  from  every 
organ  mentioned,  and  we  matched  together  with  the  standard  the  mirrors 
obtained  from  the  organs. 

Had  you  any  part  of  the  organs  left  at  that  time? — Yes. 

Was  the  apparatus  set  up? — Yes. 

Was  it  in  such  a  position  that  you  could  use  it  there  and  then  if 
necessary  ? — Yes. 

You  have  told  us  about  the  muscle  and  the  result  of  your  analysis 
with  regard  to  that.  You  remember  you  said  that  that  result  was  not 
strictly  accurate,  but  approximate? — Yes. 

You  explained  it  that  it  must  be  approximate? — It  must  be 
approximate. 

Would  you  just  mind  telling  us  why  it  cannot  be  strictly  accurate,  and 
must  be  in  that  case  approximate? — Because  it  is  impossible  to  weigh 
accurately  all  the  muscles,  and  the  amount  of  arsenic  in  them  is  such  that 
it  can  only  be  determined  by  the  method  of  making  of  mirrors,  not  by 
weighing. 

Was  the  result  which  you  arrived  at  with  regard  to  that  the  best  that 
you  could  obtain  dealing  fairly  with  it  by  these  scientific  tests? — Yes. 

Is  there  any  other  known  method  than  either  this  or  the  other 
method  which  you  have  used  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  presence 
of  arsenic  and  determining  the  quantity  ? — Neither  was  there  in  determining 
the  amount.  The  muscle  is  not  analysed,  but  the  assumption  is  made  as 
td  the  amount  which  would  be  present.  The  amount  which  I  give  as  being 
present  in  the  muscle  is  really  a  low  one  if  one  had  not  made  an  analysis, 
and  had  assumed  what  would  be  the  amount. 

Usually  an  assumption  is  made  without  ascertaining? — Yes. 
132 


E.  Marshall  Hall,  Esq.,  K.C.,  M.P. 
(Photograph  by  Su-aine,  Neio  Bond  Street.) 


Evidence  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  Henry  Willcox 

Relatively  to  the  other  parts  of  the  body? — Yes. 

In  this  particular  case  you  did  not  take  the  assumption,  but  you  did 
the  best  you  could  to  ascertain  it? — Yes,  that  is  so. 

If  you  had  taken  the  assumption  which  is  usually  taken  for  these 
purposes  would  you  have  got  more  or  less  than  you  actually  did  get? — 
Probably  more. 

So  that  you  have  taken  the  less  quantity? — Yes. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — The  sample  you  took  from  the  intestines 
•was  not  a  very  large  amount,  was  it? — Yes,  it  was  six  ounces — about  one- 
fifth  of  the  total  amount. 

How  was  that  prepared  for  analysis?  Was  it  very  closely  mixed  like 
with  a  mincing  machine,  or  was  it  merely  cut  with  a  knife? — Do  you 
mean  where  did  I  take  the  one-fifth  from? 

Yes  ? — I  took  it  from  different  portions  of  the  intestines  so  as  it  should 
be  a  representative  part. 

Each  part?— Yes. 

Some  of  the  duodenum? — Yes. 

And  so  on  passing  down? — Yes. 

And  did  you  mix  up  all  those  portions  together  very  carefully? — Yes, 
and  made  them  into  a  solution,  and  I  weighed  the  arsenic  which  I  got. 

There  are  plenty  of  places  to  which  urine  can  be  sent  for  analysis 
for  a  fee  of  something  like  5s.,  and  an  analysis  can  be  made  of  it.  There 
are  plenty  of  places? — Yes. 

The  Court  adjourned. 


Fifth   Day— Friday,  8th   March,  1912. 

The  Court  met  at  11.15  a.m. 

Dr.  WILLIAM  HENRY  WILLCOX,  recalled,  further  examined  by  the 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  made  experiments  showing  that  arsenic 
extracted  by  soaking  fly-papers  can  be  administered  with  brandy. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALT., — Were  the  standardised 
mirrors  that  were  produced  made  expressly  for  this  experiment,  or  are  they 
kept? — I  had  some  by  me,  but  I  made  a  fresh  lot  for  this  case. 

You  see  the  object  of  my  question — because  there  might  be  a  certain 
amount  of  fading? — Quite  so. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — My  lord,  my  friend  has  said  that  he  has  now 
closed  the  case  for  the  Crown,  and  it  becomes  my  duty  now  to  submit  to 
your  lordship  that  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  as  against  either  of  these 
defendants  upon  which  they  can  be  put  in  peril  upon  a  charge  of  murder. 
I  quite  agree  that  if  there  is  sufficient  evidence  the  overlaying  of  it  with 
prejudice  does  not  affect  the  case;  if  there  is  not  evidence,  no  amount  of 
prejudice,  put  upon  the  top  of  it  could  create  the  evidence  which  is  alone 
the  factor  upon  which  in  our  Courts  persons  are  entitled  to  be  tried.  It 
would  be  idle  to  remind  your  lordship,  with  your  lordship's  great  experience, 
of  the  presumption  that  nobody  has  ever  questioned  for  one  moment  that 

133 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


every  man  accused  of  any  offence  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  the 
proof  of  his  guilt  is  made  manifest  by  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKMLL — What  you  say  is  that  there  is  no  such  evidence 
here,  or  that  there  is  such  a  small  amount  of  evidence  that  I  ought  to 
tell  the  jury  that  they  cannot  convict? 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — That  they  ought  not  to  convict. 

Mr.   JUSTICE  BUCKXILL — That  they  cannot  reasonably  convict. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Exactly,  my  lord,  that  is  my  point.       I  will 
put  it  in  this  way.       This  is  an  absolutely  unique  case.        In  all  other 
cases  of  poisoning — especially  where  two  people  have  been  joined  together 
in  the  charge — there  has  always  been  some  evidence  called  tracing  into 
the  possession  of  the  persons  charged  the  poison  with  which  it  was  alleged 
the  murder  was  committed.       In  the  cases  that  are  most  familiar  to  us, 
cases  tried  in  this  Court — the  case,  for  instance,  of  Lamson,  and  the  case 
of  Cream,  and  men  of  that  sort,  and  in  the  famous  case  of  Palmer — they 
were  all  cases  where  the  accused  had  large  medical  knowledge,  and  it  was 
possible  to  assume  against  them  that  they  had  an  intimate  knowledge  of 
poisons  and  of  their  effects.       In  this  case  the  position  of  the  prosecution 
is  greatly  weakened  by  the  fact  that  they  have  two  persons  in  the  dock. 
What  might  be  strong  circumstantial  evidence  against  one  of  them  ceases 
to  be  circumstantial  evidence  against  one,  if  there  are  two  people  against 
whom  it  may  apply.       The  Crown  put  two  people  in  peril  of  their  lives 
and  say  to  the  jury,  "Here  are  two  people,  death  resulted  from  poison- 
ing "  (I  shall  have  a  word  to  say  about  that  in  a  moment).       "  Now,  both 
these  people  had  the  opportunity  of  administering  the  poison  during  the 
period   which  our   scientists  say   that   it   must   have    been   administered; 
we  cannot  say  which  of  them  did  it;  we  have  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
to  prove  that  either  of  them  ever  did  it,   or  that  there  was  any  acting 
in  concert,  or  that,  indeed,  any  poison  was  actually  found  in  the  physical 
possession   of  either   of  these   prisoners,    but   the   motive   we   say   in  one 
case  is  so  overwhelming  (and  we  suggest  in  the  other  case  that  there  is 
also   a   motive),   that  upon   that  evidence   we   ask   you  to   convict  either 
one  or  the  other."       Such   a   state  of  things  has  never  been  known   in 
this   country.        The   mere  fact  that   they   have   arrested   the   wife   after 
originally  charging  the  husband  is  an  evidence  of  weakness  on  the  part 
of  the  Crown — an  evidence  that  they  had  concluded  that  they  could  not 
bring     the     case     home     as     against     the     man,     and     therefore     they 
arrested     the     woman.         The     only     object     of     arresting     the     wife — 
and   the    argument   I    use   on   behalf    of   the    male   defendant   is,   a    for- 
tiori, an  argument  to  be  used  on  the  part  of  the  wife — the  only  object 
of  arresting  the  wife  is  to  introduce  mere  prejudice;  because,  unless  the 
wife  is  in  the  dock,  the  evidence  of  cashing  bank  notes  which  belonged 
to  the  dead  woman  would  not  be   admissible  evidence   against  the   male 
prisoner.       Therefore  the  only  effect  in  this  case  of  the  introduction  of 
the  woman  into  the  case  is  to  get  the  opportunity  of  giving  evidence  of 
the  cashing  of  twenty-seven  bank  notes  by  her  under  circumstances  which 
the  Crown  say  excited  suspicion. 

My  lord,  the  case  is  weaker  than  that.       That  eccentric  witness,  if 
I  may  call  her  so,  who  appeared  here  on  the  first  day  dressed  as  a  nurse,. 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

and  on  the  second  day  changed  her  dress,  when  before  the  magistrate 
and  before  the  coroner  swore  that  on  three  separate  occasions  she  had 
seen  Mrs.  Seddon  preparing  the  food,  the  Valentine's  meat  juice  and  the 
puddings  and  things  of  that  kind,  in  the  kitchen  downstairs.  She  came 
into  the  witness-box  on  Tuesday  and  said  that  she  had  never  seen  anything 
of  the  sort,  but  "  she  must  have  done."  That,  I  submit,  is  evidence 
of  a  class  which  a  judge  cannot  allow  to  be  relied  upon  by  a  jury.  I 
submit  that  your  lordship's  duty  is  to  say  that  people  must  not  be  put 
in  peril  of  their  lives  upon  such  evidence.  In  an  ordinary  case,  of  course, 
the  same  rule  would  apply;  there  is  no  difference  about  the  application 
of  the  rule  in  a  murder  case  except  that  there  is  naturally  greater  care 
and  caution  on  each  side  displayed  in  a  capital  case.  If  a  man  is  charged 
with  stealing  sixpence,  the  rule  of  evidence  is  the  same,  but  in  the  case 
of  murder — the  value  of  human  life  being  inestimable  and  irreplaceable — 
naturally  in  a  case  of  this  kind  one  cannot  but  apply  rules  in  the  strictest 
possible  sense. 

My  learned  friend,  the  Attorney-General,  cannot  point  to  any  particle 
of  direct  evidence  that  either  of  these  people  ever  possessed  arsenic  in 
any  shape  or  form,  or  that  they  ever  administered  it.  That  is  a  very 
strong  proposition,  and  I  submit  that  it  is  all  the  stronger  because  the 
prosecution  have  said  in  their  opening  of  this  case,  and  in  their  conduct 
of  it,  ' '  We  do  not  direct  our  evidence  more  against  one  prisoner  than 
against  the  other;  here  are  the  two  people  who  had  the  opportunity  of 
administering  the  poison,  against  one  of  whom  we  prove  a  motive." 
My  lord,  if  interest  is  to  amount  to  motive,  any  person  who  is  interested 
in  the  death  of  another  person  has  a  motive  to  kill  that  person  if  by  the 
person's  death  the  other  person  benefits.  The  mere  fact  that  this  man, 
having  given  an  annuity  for  a  term  of  years,  would  benefit  if  the  annuity 
ceased  immediately,  as  it  would  do  upon  her  death,  is  put  forward  as 
a  motive  for  committing  the  crime  of  murder.  But  my  learned  friend 
is  not  content  with  that.  He  drags  into  this  case — I  will  not  say  he 
drags  in,  because  my  learned  friend  has  conducted  this  case,  as  he 
always  conducts  any  case,  with  perfect  fairness — but  he  felt  coerced — and 
I  am  sure  he  would  not  have  done  it  unless  he  had  felt  coerced — to  bring 
into  the  case  this  further  motive.  It  is  one  that  your  lordship  and  the 
jury  must  examine  most  minutely  and  cautiously.  The  motive  my 
learned  friend  puts  forward  is  this,  that  this  man  deliberately  murdered 
this  woman  in  order  to  obtain  possession  of  a  large  sum  in  gold  and 
notes.  It  will  not  do  if  at  the  time  the  woman  died  he  had  in  his  pos- 
session money  which  was  not  his.  That  is  not  the  charge.  This  man 
is  not  charged  with  dishonesty,  as  your  lordship  was  careful  to  point  out 
to  the  jury  earlier  in  the  case.  Therefore  the  entirety  of  the  motive 
has  to  be  dealt  with,  and  the  entirety  of  the  motive  is  that  this  man 
murdered  the  woman  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  possession  of  her  pro- 
perty. That  is  not  supported  by  a  particle  of  evidence.  The  only 
direct  evidence  of  any  sort  or  shape  in  this  case  is  the  evidence  of  the 
little  boy,  Ernie  Grant,  who  says,  "  I  on  one  occasion  saw  the  prisoner 
Seddon  administer  a  drink  to  Miss  Barrow  which  was  a  clear  drink  like 
water."  Then  when  he  is  cross-examined  by  me  (of  course,  upon  instruc- 
ts 


Trial   of  the   Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


tions)  he  admits  that  it  was  the  mixture  together  of  the  two  solutions,  so 
as  to  make  it  an  effervescing  draught — as  clear  as  water,  and  ex  hypothesi, 
it  could  not  possibly  have  been  water  containing  a  fly-paper  solution, 
because  such  water  would  be  discoloured. 

I  pass  to  another  point.  Is  there  any  proof  here — any  proper  proof 
— and  this,  my  lord,  is  peculiarly  for  your  lordship — any  proof  upon  which 
the  jury  can  act,  that  this  woman  died  of  arsenic  poisoning?  All  things 
are  to  be  presumed  to  be  rightly  done.  We  have  got  the  certificate  here 
that  she  died  of  epidemic  diarrhoea.  Dr.  Willcox  and  Dr.  Spilsbury  (who, 
I  again  say,  gave  their  evidence  with  absolute  fairness),  Dr.  Sworn  and 
Dr.  Paul  all  admit  that  unless  there  was  evidence  to  satisfy  them  con- 
clusively that  there  is  this  large  quantity  of  arsenic  in  the  body,  the 
certificate  of  death  would  have  been  thoroughly  justified,  and  that  all 
the  symptoms  of  death  from  gastro  enteritis  are  the  same  as  the  Symptoms 
of  death  from  arsenical  poisoning.  I  say  that  the  balance  of  evidence 
is  such  as  to  leave  it  so  uncertain  that  your  lordship  ought  not  to  leave 
the  case  to  the  jury.  Dr.  Willcox  says  that  by  a  process  of  calculation 
he  has  arrived  at  the  determination  honestly  arrived  at — no  one  suggests 
for  a  moment  anything  against  the  honesty  and  fairness  of  his  evidence — 
that  there  was  present  in  this  body  practically  two  grains  of  arsenic.  And 
he  is  borne  out  in  that  view  by  the  fact  that  the  body  is  in  what  he 
considers  an  abnormal  state  of  preservation,  having  regard  to  the  state 
in  which  he  found  it  at  the  time  the  autopsy  was  made.  That  is  the  only 
point  that  goes  to  destroy  the  suggestion  of  death  from  gastro  enteritis. 

On  the  question  of  arsenical  poisoning  you  cannot  reject  the  evidence 
which  was  sifted  most  exhaustively  before  the  Royal  Commission  that  the 
presence  of  arsenic  in  the  hair  is  strong  evidence  that  there  has  been  a  course 
of  arsenic-taking,  and  Dr.  Willcox  admitted  that  that  would  point  to  the 
taking  of  arsenic  for  a  period  of  perhaps  twelve  months,  and  we  know 
that  arsenic  is  a  remedy  for  asthma,  from  which  this  woman  suffered. 
The  whole  of  the  evidence  in  this  case  is  totally  different  from  the  evidence 
in  any  other  case  of  which  we  have  any  record.  It  is  entirely  construc- 
tive evidence;  it  is  entirely  argumentative  evidence,  and  your  lordship 
will  not  fail  to  appreciate  the  minute  quantity  of  arsenic  which  was  alleged 
to  have  been  deposited  upon  the  mirrors  which  were  produced  as  the 
evidence  of  arsenic  in  this  case. 

Now,  my  lord,  there  is  one  flaw  in  the  Marsh  test  which  I  have 
often  wanted  to  have  an  opportunity  of  referring  to  in  these  Courts.  The 
Marsh  test  for  arsenic  is  a  splendid  test  to  detect  the  presence  of  arsenic, 
that  is  to  say,  whether  arsenic  is  or  is  not  present  in  the  tested  solution. 
But  if  your  lordship  takes  the  evidence  that  has  been  given  by  Dr.  Will- 
cox, there  is  a  defect  in  that  test  for  the  purpose  of  measuring  the  quantity 
of  arsenic.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  experiment  it  is  absolutely 
essential  that  the  quantity  of  arsenic  to  be  deposited  upon  that  mirror 
tube  must  be  infinitesimal,  and  unless  it  is  infinitesimal  you  will  find  that 
it  destroys  itself,  because  it  becomes  so  opaque  that  the  purpose  for  which 
the  experiment  is  being  performed  is  not  served.  I  have  not  in  my  mind 
what  the  range  of  standardised  mirrors  is.  I  do  not  know  what  is  the 
smallest  portion  and  what  is  the  largest  portion  of  a  milligramme. 
136 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

1  think  we  have  it  that  it  is  from  the  thirtieth  to  the  fifth  of  a  milligramme. 
Does  your  lordship  realise  what  a  milligramme  is — the  two-thousandth 
part  of  a  grain,  or,  to  be  accurate,  the  1944th  part  of  a  grain.  How  is 
that  mirror  prepared?  It  is  prepared  by  the  introduction  of  a  known 
quantity  of  arsenic  into  a  certain  amount  of  matter  for  the  purpose  of 
testing.  Nobody  suggests  for  a  moment  that  you  can  introduce  the 
exact  thirtieth  of  a  milligramme  of  arsenic  into  the  solution.  You  have 
to  make  a  solution,  and  you  have  to  put  a  certain  quantity  in  and  break 
it  up,  and  assume  that  it  is  equally  distributed,  and  then  take  a  portion 
which  represents  the  thirtieth  part  of  a  milligramme.  The  process  is 
destructive  of  accurate  quantities  for  this  reason.  There  is  the  formation 
of  a  gas ;  arseniuretted  hydrogen  is  formed,  but,  if  arsenic  is  present,  the 
hydrogen  becomes  converted.  Dr.  Willcox  says,  "  If  I  put  what  I  know 
to  be  the  thirtieth  part  of  a  milligramme  into  the  solution  and  test  it  by 
the  Marsh  test  I  get  this  mirror  which  is  in  that  form,"  but  there  is 
no  evidence  whatever  that  the  whole  thirtieth  of  a  milligramme  of  arsenic 
is  deposited  in  the  making  of  that  mirror — none  whatever.  This  being 
a  gas  which  is  passing  off,  you  cannot  analyse  the  gas  which  passes  off 
In  the  form  of  hydrogen.  How  do  we  know  that  some  portion  of  the 
arsenic  has  not  passed  off  in  the  gas  and  not  been  deposited  on  the  tube  1 
If  that  is  so,  the  quantity  deposited  on  the  tube  may  be  much  less  than 
the  1944th  part  of  a  grain.  If  it  is  much  less  it  will  make  an  enormous 
difference  in  the  calculation,  because  Dr.  Willcox  tells  us  that  the  most 
minute  particle  of  arsenic  will  be  reflected  on  the  mirror.  If  you  get 
the  minutest  fraction  of  error  in  your  calculation  it  results  in  a  most 
enormously  magnified  error,  because  the  multiplying  factor  is  nearly 
2000.  Not  only  that,  but  with  the  greatest  skill  in  the  world  it  cornea 
to  be  a  question  of  the  most  marvellous  eyesight.  You  have  to  differ- 
entiate between  different  shades  of  colours,  differing  in  so  minute  a  way 
that  the  most  clever  observer  cannot  detect  the  difference. 

Upon  the  question  whether  there  is  affirmative  and  indisputable 
evidence  that  this  woman  died  of  arsenic  poisoning  the  calculation  under 
which  the  total  amount  of  arsenic  present  in  the  body  is  arrived  at  is  a 
calculation  which  is  dependent,  first  of  all,  upon  this  most  minute  ex- 
periment dealing  with  the  30th  of  a  milligramme  of  arsenic.  There 
is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  total  30th  of  a  milligramme  is  the  test 
solution  deposited  on  the  mirror;  and  the  slightest  error  will  be  multi- 
plied by  2000  in  arriving  at  your  calculation.  My  lord,  I  say  that  that 
is  evidence  so  fine,  so  nice,  that  where  you  have  got  a  large  amount  of 
prejudice  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  judge  to  see  that  the  prejudice  ifl 
neutralised  as  much  as  possible. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKMLL — That  is  always  done  by  the  judge  in  his 
summing  up. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  quite  agree,  my  lord,  but  I  submit  that  the 
evidence  here  is  so  infinitesimal — it  is  like  the  30th  part  of  a  milligramme 
of  arsenic — the  evidence  is  so  small  that  it  would  be  dangerous — whatever 
the  suspicion  in  this  case  may  be  it  would  be  dangerous  to  submit  this 
case  to  the  determination  of  a  jury  whose  minds  are  biassed — of  course, 
perfectly  honestly — I  do  not  mean  to  reflect  in  the  slightest  way  upon 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


the  jury  at  all,  but  it  is  your  lordship's  province  if  you  think  that  there 
is  no  sufficient  evidence — that  is  the  proper  word — no  sufficient 
evidence — upon  which  the  prisoners  should  be  put  in  peril — it  is  your 
lordship's  province  and  your  lordship's  duty  to  say,  in  your  judicial 
capacity,  that  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury,  and  your 
lordship  should  withdraw  the  case  from  them. 

Mr.  RBNTOUL — My  lord,  I  desire  to  identify  myself,  on  behalf  of 
Mrs.  Seddon,  with  every  word  that  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Marshall  Hall 
has  said,  especially  with  regard  to  the  medical  evidence.  Of  course, 
everything  that  he  has  said  on  behalf  of  the  male  prisoner  applies  a 
fortiori  to  the  female  prisoner.  But,  speaking  generally  on  the  case  for 
the  prosecution  that  has  been  made  out  against  Mrs.  Seddon,  however 
weak  it  may  be  against  the  male  prisoner,  it  is  immeasurably  weaker 
against  the  female  prisoner ;  in  fact,  so  weak,  my  lord,  that  I  do  wish 
strongly  to  submit  to  your  lordship  that  against  her  there  is  no  evidence 
at  all  which  your  lordship  could  safely  allow  to  go  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — It  has  been  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel 
on  behalf  of  each  of  the  prisoners,  in  the  first  place,  that  is  to  say,  with 
regard  to  the  man,  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  justify  the  jury  in 
coming  to  a  verdict  hostile  to  the  defendants,  and  so,  on  behalf  of  the 
woman,  it  has  been  argued  that  there  is  no  evidence  at  all.  In  all 
capital  cases  which  I  have  tried  during  the  many  years  I  have  been  on 
the  bench  when  similar  arguments  have  been  addressed  to  the  Court  which 
I  have  not  been  able  to  accept,  I  have  taken  care  to  confine  myself  to  one 
observation,  so  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  one  to  think  that  I 
have  formed  any  opinion  in  the  matter,  and  I  do  that  to-day.  I  confine 
my  observation  to  saying  that  the  case  must  proceed. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — My  lord,  I  shall  call  the  male  prisoner  and 
witnesses  as  to  facts. 

Opening  Speech  for  the   Defence. 

May  it  please  your  lordship.  Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  a  good  deal  of 
what  I  have  to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  has  been  said  to  my  lord  in  your 
hearing  just  now,  and  therefore  I  will  not  recapitulate  it.  A  great  deal 
of  what  I  .should  have  had  to  say  to  you  I  have  said  to  my  lord,  and  I 
dare  say  you  will  have  noticed  that  I  was  watching  to  see  whether  you 
were  giving  it  the  same  careful  attention  which  you  have  paid  to  the 
v;hole  of  this  case.  Therefore,  so  far  as  that  portion  of  my  argument  goes, 
I  need  not  recapitulate  it  here.  I  shall  have  another  opportunity  at  a 
later  stage  of  addressing  you,  and  after  the  patience  you  have  shown 
through  the  whole  of  this  case  I  am  not  going  to  take  up  your  time  unduly. 
The  case  is  a  strain  upon  all  of  us — I  care  not  whether  it  be  the  learned 
judge  who  sits  there,  or  my  learned  friend  who  sits  here,  whom  I  have 
known  for  so  many  years,  and  whom  I  admire  and  respect — it  is  not 
affectation  on  my  part  to  say  so — and,  as  to  myself,  after  many  years' 
experience  of  these  Courts,  I  can  say  honestly  that  I  trust  this  may  be  the 
last  big  capital  case  in  which  I  shall  ever  be  engaged.  The  strain  upon 
counsel  in  these  cases  is  a  great  deal  more  than  you  can  possibly  realise ; 
but,  gentlemen,  do  not  think  that  I  disguise  from  myself  that  the  greatest 
138 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

strain,  after  all,  is  upon  you,  and  I  am,  to  the  last  degree,  grateful  for 
the  attention  which  you  have  given,  and  I  know  will  give,  to  the  end  of  this 
case,  although  it  has  involved,  in  your  case,  the  giving  up  of  your  home 
life  and  the  sacrifice  of  a  great  many  other  things.  But,  gentlemen, 
when  you  come  to  deal  with  the  question  of  human  life  there  is  no  one 
who  is  not  prepared  to  make  a  sacrifice  in  order  to  come  to  a  just  and 
righteous  conclusion.  With  those  few  prefatory  remarks  I  will,  if  you 
will  allow  me,  proceed  with  the  few  words  I  have  to  say  in  opening  this 
case  on  behalf  of  the  male  prisoner,  Seddon.  The  female  prisoner  is 
defended  by  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Rentoul.  I  am  appearing  for  her 
husband,  and,  to  some  extent,  my  defence,  of  course,  must  cover  her 
defence  as  well,  but  I  am  not  going  to  encroach  upon  my  learned  friend's 
province.  He  will  have  an  opportunity  of  addressing  you,  and,  at  the 
proper  time,  he  will  no  doubt  adopt  such  of  my  arguments  as  he  may 
approve  of,  and  he  will  advance  such  further  arguments  as  he  thinks 
fit  in  the  interests  of  his  own  client. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  deal  with  the  case  very  shortly,  and  I  will,  first  of 
all,  say  just  a  few  words  upon  the  great  responsibility  which  attaches 
to  you  in  this  case  in  consequence  of  the  prejudice  with  which  it  is 
surrounded.  The  prejudice  is  really  a  real  danger  in  this  case,  because 
you  have  to  be  more  than  ordinarily  careful  here  to  remember  that  the 
only  charge  that  we  are  investigating,  the  only  direct  issue  in  this  case 
(I  know  my  lord  will  tell  you  so)  is,  did  the  male  prisoner,  Frederick 
Henry  Seddon,  or  did  his  wife,  Margaret  Seddon,  either  acting  singly  or 
jointly  administer  a  fatal  dose  of  arsenic,  or  series  of  fatal  doses  of  arsenic 
— because  there  is  a  certain  variation  now  between  the  case  as  opened  and 
the  case  as  conducted  at  the  Police  Court' — did  he,  or  she,  or  both,  ad- 
minister either  one  dose  or  a  series  of  fatal  doses  of  arsenic  between  the 
2nd  September  and  the  14th?  We  need  not  go  behind  those  dates, 
because  there  is  no  suggestion  of  any  earlier  date  than  that. 

I  have  already  pointed,  and  my  lord,  I  know,  will  also  point  outr 
that  you  cannot  deal  with  a  case  of  this  kind  upon  suspicion.  It  does 
not  matter  how  great  the  suspicion  may  be,  it  does  not  matter  how  over- 
whelming you  may  think  the  motive  is,  it  does  not  matter  how  mean  and 
despicable  you  think  the  conduct  may  be  of  the  man  who  is  charged.  That 
is  not  sufficient  to  convict  him  of  the  charge  of  murder.  You  must  be- 
satisfied  in  your  own  minds  that  the  person  whom  you  are  going  to  find 
guilty,  if  it  is  one  person,  of  this  offence — either  he  or  she — administered 
this  arsenic  with  the  intention  of  destroying  the  life  of  the  person  to  whom 
it  was  administered.  You  can,  of  course,  say,  if  you  think  there  is  any 
evidence  upon  which  you  can  find  it,  that  these  two  people  acting  together 
jointly  and  in  concert  determined  to  do  away  with  this  unfortunate  woman 
— combined  together  to  murder  this  woman  by,  perhaps,  one  preparing  and 
the  other  administering  the  dose  or  doses  of  arsenic.  Gentlemen,  I  say 
at  the  outset  upon  that  that  I  submit  to  you  that  there  is  no  evidence 
you  can  act  upon  as  men  of  the  world.  You  may  have  suspicion.  You 
may  feel  that  here  there  is  a  motive  which  is  a  strong  motive  as  against 
the  male  prisoner ;  you  may  feel  that  he  has  behaved  badly  in  the  unfor- 
tunate matter  of  the  funeral ;  you  may  feel  many  things  which  are  to  his 
prejudice ;  but  I  submit  to  you  that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  upon 

139 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


which  you  can  find  him  guilty  of  the  administration  of  this  poison ;  and 
it  is  only  by  finding  him  guilty  of  the  administration  of  this  poison  that 
you  can  find  him  guilty  on  the  indictment  upon  which  he  is  charged.  As 
an  advocate,  if  I  were  dealing  with  this  case  as  an  ordinary  case,  where 
the  case  for  the  Crown  is  closed,  I  would  suggest  to  you  that  the  proper 
course  for  me  to  pursue  would  be  to  rest  upon  the  contention  I  have 
made,  and  to  say,  so  satisfied  am  I  that  my  contention  is  sound  that, 
although  my  lord  cannot  say  that  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence,  and  I 
can  trust  my  lord  to  point  out  to  you  what  a  small  amount  of  evidence 
there  is — which  I  must  presume  now  to  exist  because  my  lord  has  held 
that  the  case  must  go  to  you — I  might  trust  to  that  and  say  I  will  call 
no  witnesses,  and  will  trust  entirely  to  the  weakness  of  the  case  for  the 
Crown  in  order  to  defeat  its  own  proposition.  But,  gentlemen,  this  is 
a  capital  case ;  this  is  a  case  where  there  are  no  means  of  remedying 
a  mistake  if  once  made ;  there  are  no  means  of  getting  back  that  which 
may  be,  in  consequence  of  your  verdict,  absolutely  taken  away.  There- 
fore, in  my  view — and  I  say  it  publicly — it  is  for  the  prisoner  to  elect 
what  is  the  proper  course  for  him  to  take ;  and  in  this  case  both  prisoners 
(I  am  instructed  that  my  learned  friend  will  adopt  the  same  course) — 
both  prisoners  desire  to  go  into  the  box,  and  to  take  advantage  of  the 
privilege  that  has  been  given  them  of  giving  evidence  in  cases  of  this  kind, 
and  both  of  them  promise  to  go  into  the  box  and  tell  you  their  own  story. 

I  do  not  know — I  have  no  means  of  knowing — whether  or  not  my 
learned  friend  will  think  it  necessary  to  pursue  a  line  of  cross-examination 
with  regard  to  the  male  prisoner  somewhat  indicated  by  the  line  of  his 
opening.  There  will  be  a  nice  question  for  my  lord  to  decide  whether 
such  a  cross-examination  is  admissible  in  this  case.  It  is  a  rule  of  our 
Courts,  laid  down  at  the  time  when  the  law  enacted  that  prisoners  might 
give  evidence  on  their  own  behalf,  that  they  are  not  liable  to  be  cross- 
examined  as  to  the  commission  of  any  other  offence  unless  the  commission 
of  such  an  offence  is  a  material  part  of  the  question  whether  they  are 
guilty  or  innocent  of  the  crime  with  which  they  are  charged.  Where  a 
prisoner  is  charged  with  the  most  serious  offence  known  to  the  law  there 
is  the  danger  that  your  judgments  may  be  warped  and  your  minds  pre- 
judiced by  a  cross-examination  designed  to  show  that  after  this  woman's 
death  he  took  possession  of  money  which  he  has  denied  strenuously  he 
ever  saw,  and  the  existence  of  which,  I  submit,  has  never  been  satis- 
factorily proved.  Gentlemen,  that  is  a  matter  which  will  be  dealt  with 
in  cross-examination.  I  shall  be  able  to  prove  before  you,  fortunately 
by  independent  witnesses,  that  in  1909,  long  before  the  existence  of  Misa 
Barrow  was  ever  known  to  him,  this  man  was  in  the  habit  of  keeping  large 
sums  of  money,  to  the  amount  of  £200  in  gold,  in  his  house — long  before 
Miss  Barrow  was  ever  heard  of.  Fortunately  I  am  able  to  call  inde- 
pendent witnesses  who  will  prove  that.  In  addition  to  his  insurance 
business,  he  had  another  little  business  from  which  some  ready  money 
came.  He  had  a  sort  of  mania  for  keeping  money.  He  had  two  safes  in 
the  house.  The  arguments  upon  this  more  properly  belong  to  the  final 
speech  that  I  have  to  make ;  1  am  merely  now  indicating  the  line  of 
evidence  I  shall  call.  I  shall  call  before  you  witnesses  who  are  above 
any  suspicion  whatever,  who  will  tell  you  that  as  early  as  1909  this  man 

140 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr,  Marshall  Hall 

had  two  safes,  one  in  his  bedroom  and  one  in  his  office  downstairs,  and 
that  he  kept  as  much  as  £200  in  the  house ;  you  will  hear  that  upon  one 
occasion  he  had  as  much  as  £230  all  in  gold. 

Gentlemen,  the  suggestion  of  the  prosecution  is  that  immediately 
before  this  woman  died — -that  is.  what  the  question  really  comes  to — if  you 
are  going  to  deal  with  Hook's  evidence — the  most  tainted  evidence,  I 
suggest,  that  you  could  possibly  deal  with — that  there  was  some  £400,  or 
£500,  or  £600,  in  this  box — I  do  not  quite  know  whether  the  suggestion 
is  that  this  man  took  possession  of  this  money,  and  such  a  callous,  hard- 
hearted brute  was  he  that  on  the  very  day  that  he  murdered  the  woman  he 
took  possession  of  the  money — that  when  he  murdered  this  woman  on  that 
very  afternoon  he  did  not  wait,  but  took  the  gold  from  the  room  where 
the  woman  died  down  into  the  safe  downstairs,  and  then  paraded  it  before 
his  fellow-employees — money  which  he  had  just  obtained  by  the  murder 
of  the  woman.  One's  own  intelligence,  I  think,  shudders  and  revolts  at  a 
suggestion  of  that  kind.  Is  it  credible  that  a  man  would  do  anything 
of  that  kind  in  that  way  at  that  moment,  and  under  the  circumstances 
which  are  alleged  against  him? 

There  is  another  point  which  my  learned  friend  will  have  to  grapple 
with  when  he  comes  to  deal  with  this  case.  I  pointed  it  out  to  my  lord 
just  now,  and  I  need  only  just  indicate  it  to  you  again.  You  will  find  in 
the  history  of  these  cases  of  murder  by  poisoning  that  the  person  convicted 
of  poisoning  has  been  generally  a  person  who  has  an  intimate  medical 
knowledge  of  poisons.  What  evidence  is  there  here  that  this  man  knew — 
did  any  of  you  know — ask  yourselves — did  any  one  of  you  gentlemen  know 
that  the  symptoms  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning  were  identical  with  the 
symptoms  of  epidemic  diarrhcea?  Unless  you  do  know  it,  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  incredible  to  suggest  that  this  man  should  poison  this  woman  with 
arsenic.  For  some  reason,  although  there  is  a  special  Act  of  Parliament 
dealing  with  arsenic,  as  far  as  one  can  judge  from  what  one  knows  of 
things  in  general,  the  facility  with  which  arsenic  can  be  purchased  in  the 
form  of  weed  killers  and  things  of  that  kind,  is  extraordinary;  but  I  take 
it  that  that  is  because  it  is  so  improbable  that  anybody  should  administer 
a  poison  so  agonisingly  painful  as  arsenic  when  there  are  so  many  poisons 
that  are  painless  and  difficult  of  detection  that  it  is  hardly  credible  that 
anybody  would  administer  arsenic.  But  is  it  credible  that  a  man  of  his 
position  in  life,  having  this  woman  ill  in  his  house — and  there  is  no 
suggestion  whatever  that  those  visits  of  Dr.  Paul  were  caused  by  anything 
but  illness — she  is  complaining  of  congestion  of  the  liver  and  pain  up  to 
the  22nd  August — there  is  no  suggestion  that  that  was  not  genuine — should 
go  to  a  strange  doctor,  and  then,  when  on  the  2nd  September  she  is 
suddenly  taken  really  ill,  be  so  bold,  such  a  hardened  criminal,  and  so 
skilled  that  he  knows  that  he  can  now  safely  administer  arsenic  in  minute 
quantities,  because  she  has  now  got  epidemic  diarrhoea,  as  to  bounce  the 
situation  by  calling  in  a  medical  man  who  will  attend  all  through,  and  who 
does  attend,  and  never  has  the  smallest  suspicions,  and  who  at  the  end 
certifies  that  death  is  due  to  epidemic  diarrhoea?  Then  I  suggest  to  you 
another  matter  for  your  consideration.  It  is  now  admitted,  having  regard 
to  all  these  public  institutions  which  exist — you  cannot  have  it  both  ways — 
that  if  this  man's  medical  knowledge  was  such — and  I  suppose  it  will  hav* 

141 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


to  be  suggested  (although  he  will  tell  you  on  his  oath  that  he  never  bought 
any  arsenic  in  his  life,  and  that  he  knows  nothing  about  poisons,  or  the 
peculiar  effect  of  arsenic) — it  will  have  to  be  suggested  that  he  knows  so 
much  about  it  as  to  know  that  it  will  not  be  possible  to  distinguish  at  all 
between  the  symptoms  of  arsenical  poisoning  and  the  symptoms  of  epidemic 
diarrhoea;  and  he  has  the  audacity  to  adopt  arsenic  as  his  means  of 
poison,  when  in  these  days  there  are  hospitals  and  other  institutions 
where  upon  payment  of  a  small  fee  any  doctor  attending  to  a  case  may 
go  and  have  the  excreta,  or  anything  else,  analysed  without  troubling 
himself  to  do  it.  It  is  a  very  strong  proposition. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  another  matter  that  you  will  have  to  deal  with, 
and  in  opening  this  case  it  is  a  matter  that  I  should  like  to  say  a  few 
words  about.  There  is  one  witness  whose  evidence,  speaking  on  behalf  of 
the  male  prisoner,  I  resent.  I  refer  to  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Thorley.  I 
was  rather  hampered  at  the  moment  in  cross-examining  him,  because  it 
was  so  unnecessary  to  call  him  at  all.  I  suggest  to  you  that  his 
evidence  is  totally  unreliable.  It  is  a  very  fair  instance,  I  suggest,  of 
the  danger  of  identification  of  this  kind.  The  position  Mr.  Thorley 
takes  up  is  this,  "  In  the  month  of  December  I  was  approached  by  several 
policemen  who  asked  me  if  I  could  identify  a  girl  who  bought  fly-papers  ; 
I  knew,"  says  Thorley,  "  at  that  time  that  this  North  London  case  was 
going  on."  You  can  imagine  what  sensation  was  caused  in  this  im- 
mediate neighbourhood  where  these  people  lived.  He  knew  the  name 
of  Seddon,  because  Seddon  was  the  person  charged.  It  took  place  in 
September,  and  he  knew  that  Seddon  had  given  evidence,  and  it  was  all 
over  London — "  The  North  London  Mystery."  "  The  police  came  several 
times,  and  I  told  them  that  I  could  not  identify  anybody.  It  was  a  fact 
that  I  found  on  looking  at  the  books  that  I  had  sold  a  packet  of  fly-papers 
on  the  26th  August,  1911,  but  I  could  not  identify  that  girl."  Now, 
what  do  we  know?  That  several  efforts  were  made  by  the  police 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — He  did  not  say  that  he  could  not  identify 
anybody. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — He  said  that  the  police  called  several  times,  and 
he  told  them  that  he  could  not  identify  the  purchaser.  However,  I  am 
in  your  hands,  gentlemen;  you  are  the  judges  of  this.  The  impression 
that  Mr.  Thorley  conveyed  to  me,  and  which  I  am  trying  to  re-convey 
back  to  you,  was  that  he  led  the  police  to  understand  when  they  called 
upon  him  early  in  December  that  he  did  not  think  he  could  identify  the 
purchaser — I  do  not  care  whether  he  said  he  could  not  identify  her,  or 
did  not  think  he  could  identify  her;  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  If 
this  girl  who  bought  these  fly-papers  on  the  26th  August  was  Margaret 
Seddon  he  must  have  known  then  that  it  was  the  same  girl  who  had 
called  to  see  his  daughter  Mabel  on  two  occasions.  Therefore  all  he  had 
to  do  to  elucidate  the  identity  of  the  purchaser  was  to  ask  his  daughter 
Mabel,  "  Who  is  the  girl  who  calls  for  you?  "  the  girl  would  at  once  have 
said,  "Why,  that's  Margaret  Seddon."  Then  he  would  at  once  say, 
"  Well,'  of  course,  I  cannot  identify  her  personally,  but  I  can  tell  you 
that  she  is  the  same  girl  who  called  to  see  my  daughter,  and  my  daughter 
tells  me  that  her  name  is  Margaret  Seddon."  Then  on  2nd  February 
this  man  is  taken  down  in  the  motor  to  the  Police  Court;  he  is  taken  to 
142 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence, 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

the  Police  Court  first  for  the  purpose  of  identifying — whom?  For  the 
purpose  of  identifying  Margaret  Seddon,  whose  portrait  he  has  seen  in 
the  illustrated  papers  as  connected  with  this  particular  case.  And  so 
when  he  goes  down,  and  twenty  people  are  put  in  a  room  before  him,  the 
first  person  he  sees  has  a  face  that  is  familiar  to  him  for  two  reasons — it 
is  familiar  to  him  because  it  is  the  face  of  the  girl  who  has  twice  been 
in  his  shop  and  seen  his  daughter,  and,  secondly,  he  recognises  her  from 
her  portrait ;  it  is  familiar  to  him  because  it  is  the  face  of  the  girl  dressed 
identically  as  she  is  dressed  in  the  picture  published  broadcast  in  the 
public  press.  So  that  with  all  the  honest  intention  in  the  world — and 
I  do  not  for  one  shadow  of  a  second  suggest  against  Mr.  Thorley  that  he 
is  doing  anything  deliberately  dishonest  or  with  any  intention  of  deceiving 
the  Court,  but  he  has  persuaded  himself  that  the  girl  he  identifies,  and 
does  really  and  properly  identify,  as  the  girl  who  had  been  to  see  his 
daughter,  and  as  the  girl  whose  photograph  he  had  seen  in  the  public 
press,  he  identifies  her  as  the  girl  who  bought  the  fly-papers  in  August, 
1911.  Gentlemen,  upon  that  evidence  of  identity  you  would  not,  I  was 
going  to  say,  give  effect  to  it  supposing  that  this  was  a  question  of 
identifying  a  person  upon  the  most  simple  charge,  but  certainly  in  the 
case  of  a  person  indicted  upon  the  capital  charge  you  would  not  treat  it 
seriously  at  all. 

I  submit  that  the  identity  of  the  girl  as  the  person  who  purchased 
fly-papers  on  that  day  there  is  absolutely  valueless.  But,  gentlemen,  it  is 
valuable  to  me  for  this  reason — and  this  reason  only — that  it  shows  the 
weakness  of  my  learned  friend's  case.  If  the  Crown,  with  all  their  resources, 
with  the  whole  of  Scotland  Yard  and  the  detective  force  at  their  com- 
mand, with  unlimited  money  to  spend,  with  the  facility  of  making  any 
inquiries  they  choose — if  that  is  the  best  evidence  of  the  purchase  of 
fly-papers  that  there  is  against  these  people,  it  shows  how  very  weak  their 
case  must  be ;  because  if  that  is  the  link  in  the  chain — and  no  chain  is 
stronger  than  its  weakest  link — how  weak  that  link  is.  I  should  be  sorry 
to  have  to  rest,  if  I  were  prosecuting  a  person  upon  any  indictment, 
upon  a  chain  of  which  that  link  formed  a  small  component. 

The  prosecution  are  bound  to  formulate  some  definite  theory  with 
regard  to  this  poisoning.  Their  case  is  not  that  arsenic  was  obtained 
from  any  other  source,  but  that  fly-papers  were  purchased,  and  that  from 
fly-papers  was  extracted  arsenic,  and  that  arsenic  in  the  form  of  a  coloured 
solution  was  administered  to  this  unfortunate  woman  until  her  death  was 
caused.  Gentlemen,  that  is  a  far-reaching  proposition,  and  there  are 
a  great  many  premises  which  you  will  have  to  accept  before  you  act  upon 
it.  First  of  all,  you  have  got  to  presuppose  that  Seddon  knew — did  any 
of  you  know? — that  these  papers  contained  arsenic;  I  doubt  it;  I  do  not 
know  what  your  knowledge  is,  but  I  doubt  very  much,  whether,  knowing 
as  we  do,  the  deadly  nature  of  arsenic,  we  could  conceive  it  credible  that 
the  Legislature  would  allow  fly-papers  containing  such  deadly  poison  to  be 
sold  haphazard  to  any  child  who  went  into  a  shop  and  asked  for  them. 
The  very  fact  that  these  things  can  be  obtained  is  of  itself  destructive  of 
the  proposition  that  the  person  who  bought  them  knew  the  quantity 
of  poison  that  they  contained.  That  is  the  first  proposition  that  has  to 
be  assumed  against  me  before  you  come  to  the  second  part  of  the  pro- 

M3 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


position.  The  second  part  of  the  proposition  is  that  not  only  did  Seddon 
know  that  these  papers  contained  this  arsenic,  but  that  he  knew  that  the 
az-senic  could  be  abstracted  from  them.  Did  any  of  you  know  that? 
Ask  yourselves.  I  cannot  tell  what  your  ranks  in  life  are,  but  your  own 
knowledge  in  these  matters  is  important.  I  am  never  so  astonished 
as  I  am  every  day  of  my  life  at  my  own  ignorance  when  1  find  that  I 
know  so  little  about  matters  about  which  other  people  know  so  much. 
I  dare  say  you  will  agree  with  me  that  it  is  very  improbable  that  any  of 
you  twelve  gentlemen  would  know  either  the  quantity  of  arsenic  which  is 
now  proved  to  be  contained  in  these  fly-papers,  or  that  you  knew  that  that 
arsenic  could  be  extracted  in  a  fluid  form  by  treatment  of  the  paper. 
It  appears  now  that  Dr.  Willcox  has  made  it  public  to  the  world  that  if 
you  do  it  scientifically  with  boiling  water  you  can  get  in  some  cases  as 
much  as  six  grains,  and  from  another  paper  that  was  got  from  one  par- 
ticular shop — I  do  not  know  whether  that  shopkeeper  has  any  special 
arrangement  with  Messrs.  Mather,  by  which  he  gets  a  specially  strong 
fly-paper — but  still  there  is  the  fact  that  out  of  one  fly-paper  he  got 
five  or  six  grains  by  boiling  for  a  certain  number  of  hours  ;  as  you  boil 
it  it  increases  the  colour,  because  you  get  out  the  colouring  matter,  and 
so  you  make  it  less  useful  for  the  purpose  of  its  being  given  to  a  person 
without  detection  and  without  exciting  suspicion.  That  is  another 
premise  that  you  have  to  assume.  Then  Dr.  Willcox  says  with  cold  water 
you  can  get  out  a  grain  and  a  half — and  you  do  not  get  such  a  strongly 
coloured  decoction  then.  Again  I  ask  you  gentlemen,  did  you  know 
that?  Is  everything  to  be  assumed  against  this  man  that  he  knew  all 
these  scientific  facts ;  is  it  to  be  assumed  that  he  knew  how  to  treat  these 
fly-papers  in  the  best  possible  way  to  get  these  poisonous  matters? 
Gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  where  we  are  going  in  assumptions  against  this 
man.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  got  a  fly-paper  in  his  Hfe ;  there 
is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  had  a  fly-paper  in  his  hands  in  his  life,  but 
it  is  all  to  be  assumed  against  him  because,  forsooth,  he  benefits  to  the 
extent  of  about  £2000  by  the  early  death  of  this  woman.  Why  are  they 
troubling  with  the  fly-papers  at  all?  Because  my  learned  friends  have 
no  other  case  which  they  could  find  to  put  before  any  jury ;  because  a 
man  cannot  buy  arsenic  in  the  ordinary  way  except  by  signing  a  poisons 
book. 

We  know  that  in  a  case  which  excited  the  whole  country  a  few  months 
ago  the  purchase  of  a  far  more  deadly  poison  than  arsenic  was  entered 
in  the  poisons  book  and  signed  for  by  the  man  who  purchased  it.  Here 
there  is  no  question  that  arsenic  was  procured  from  anybody  else,  and  so 
they  are  driven  to  the  fly-papers.  From  whom  does  the  suggestion  as  to 
the  fly-papers  arise  ?  From  the  defence ;  it  is  in  consequence  of  some- 
thing that  happened  on  6th  December,  that  Mr.  Thorley  told  us  about, 
that  this  fly-paper  theory  is  put  forward.  What  was  it?  On  the  4th 
December — and  never  was  there  a  more  important  factor  in  a  case  than  the 
one  statement  of  Inspector  Ward  in  this  case — one  of  the  most  cogent 
and  important  words — and,  gentlemen,  I  warn  you  that  a  word  may  make 
all  the  difference  in  a  case  of  this  kind — one  of  the  most  important  state- 
ments was  this.  The  first  thing  Inspector  Ward  says  to  Seddon  is,  "I 
am  arresting  you  on  a  charge  of  murdering  Miss  Barrow  by  arsenic.'* 
144 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

"Arsenic?  Murder?  She  could  not  have  done  it  herself.  Arsenic?" 
And  on  the  4th  December  this  man  is  arrested.  Of  course,  it  is  known 
that  he  is  arrested  on  the  charge  of  poisoning  by  arsenic.  Although 
you  know  that  legally  you  are  not  bound  to  prove  your  innocence,  he  had 
said,  "  I  can  prove  my  innocence  of  this  " — but  "  arsenic — what  on 
earth  can  I  have  had  that  contained  arsenic ;  where  is  arsenic  ? ' '  Then 
they  remember  that  they  have  had  some  of  Mather's  fly-papers  (which  I 
will  deal  with  in  a  moment)  in  the  month  of  August;  and  in  order  to 
ascertain  whether  these  fly-papers  did,  in  fact,  contain  arsenic  sufficient 
for  a  fatal  dose,  on  the  6th  December  the  girl,  Margaret,  on  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  solicitor  for  the  defence,  goes  into  the  shop  of  Mr.  Price;  he 
was  the  gentleman,  you  will  remember,  who  wanted  to  give  you  a  little 
exposition ;  you  will  remember  the  gentleman  with  the  grey  beard.  On 
the  6th  December  she  goes  to  that  shop,  watched  by  the  police,  or,  anyhow, 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  police ;  because  the  next  day  the  police  them- 
selves go  to  the  same  shop  and  buy  fly-papers ;  they  either  watched  the 
girl  or  got  information  that  she  had  gone  to  the  shop ;  I  do  not  care 
which ;  for  all  I  know  it  may  be  that  the  solicitor  told  them,  but  we  have 
the  fact  that  the  police  go  themselves  the  very  next  day  to  the  same  shop 
for  the  purpose  of  buying  fly-papers  from  that  shop.  It  is  because  Mar- 
garet Seddon  went  to  buy  some  fly-papers  for  the  purpose  of  experiment 
on  the  6th  December  that  this  theory  of  poisoning  by  fly-papers  is  set  up 
by  the  prosecution.  On  the  part  of  the  Crown  there  is  not  a  tittle  of 
evidence  of  the  presence  of  fly-papers  in  this  house.  All  the  witnesses 
called  for  the  prosecution  I  cross-examined  as  to  whether  they  had  seen 
fly-papers.  It  does  not  matter  to  me  two  straws,  because  I  am  going  to 
prove  that  there  were  fly-papers,  and  I  am  going  to  put  into  the  witness- 
box  the  person  who  bought  them.  Margaret  Seddon  did  not  buy  them ; 
she  did  go  for  one  on  the  6th  December,  and  the  chemist  would  not  serve 
her ;  but  she  never  bought  any  fly-papers  herself.  It  is  because  on  the 
6th  December  fly-papers  are  bought  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether 
these  Mather's  fly-papers  contain  sufficient  arsenic  in  them  that  the  police 
go  to  the  same  shop  to  purchase  fly-papers  in  order  to  experiment  to 
see  whether  there  is  arsenic  in  those  papers,  and  whether  by  any  possi- 
bility the  arsenic  could  have  been  got  from  the  papers — it  is  through 
this  that,  on  the  instructions  of  the  solicitor,  who  has  displayed  con- 
spicuous ability  in  this  case,  young  Mr.  Saint,  who  instructs  me — it  was 
upon  his  instructions  that  Margaret  Seddon  was  sent  to  buy  fly-papers 
for  the  purpose  of  their  testing  them  to  see  whether  they  did,  in  fact, 
contain  a  poisonous  dose  of  arsenic.  It  is  in  consequence  of  that  that 
the  fly-paper  theory  is  advanced. 

But,  again,  what  is  the  presumption?  Assuming,  and  assuming 
effectively,  the  fly-papers  were  in  this  house.  It  is  part  of  the  case  for 
the  Crown — and  for  once  I  am  at  one  with  my  learned  friend  ;  that  is 
part  of  my  case — that  fly-papers  were  in  this  house.  When  I  say  fly- 
papers, I  am  dealing  with  arsenical  fly-papers  all  along — Mather's  fly- 
papers ;  whether  they  were  Mather's  I  do  not  know,  but  arsenical  fly-papers 
— papers  that  you  wet  and  the  flies  drink  it;  those  are  the  papers  that  I 
am  talking  of.  They  were  in  this  house  at  this  time ;  but  what  evidence 
is  there  that  there  was  a  poisonous  dose?  It  is  not  for  me  to  prove  my 
K  145 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


defence,  and  I  am  merely  making  a  suggestion.  I  am  going  to  suggest 
that  this  woman,  parched  with  thirst,  a  raging  thirst,  and  not  strong  in 
her  mind,  with  this  clear  fluid  available — because  I  understand  it  does  not 
ehow  any  colouring ;  I  am  only  putting  this  forward  as  a  mere  possibility 
or  suggestion ;  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  one  way  or  the  other,  because, 
if  it  did  take  place,  ex  hypothesi  she  is  alone  and  unattended.  Why  may 
she  not,  in  her  raging  thirst,  have  drunk  some  of  the  water  in  which 
fly-papers  had  been  soaked,  or  some  of  it  may  have  got  into  whatever 
she  was  taking  (that  is  assuming  that  you  are  satisfied  that  death  resulted 
from  arsenic) ;  may  not  something  of  that  sort  have  happened  through 
the  servant— that  hare-brained  woman — without  intending  for  a  moment 
to  administer  arsenic,  leaving  something  of  this  sort  about;  might  that 
not  have  happened  with  a  slovenly  5s.  a  week  servant,  and  so  the  whole 
thing  have  been  brought  about  by  mere  accident?  But  it  is  said,  no, 
everything  of  this  kind  is  to  be  eliminated  from  the  case ;  the  possibility 
of  accident  is  to  be  eliminated.  Oh,  no,  they  say,  it  could  not  possibly 
be  an  accidental  death  on  the  part  of  this  woman,  because  there  is  such 
motive  for  Seddon  doing  it.  There  is  no  evidence  of  Seddon  doing  it, 
but  you  must  eliminate  the  possibility  of  the  woman's  death  being  caused 
by  accident  because  the  motive  for  Seddon  committing  the  crime  is  over- 
whelming, and  therefore  you  must  convict  him  of  the  murder. 

Gentlemen,  did  you  notice  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Sworn?  I  asked  him 
about  flies.  He  said  he  never  in  his  life  saw  so  many  flies  in  a  sick-room 
as  when  he  went  there  early  in  September.  And  he  gave  the  reason : 
the  flies  were  drawn  there  by  the  fcetid  smell  of  the  urine  and  excrement, 
and  so  forth,  that  was  passing  from  this  unfortunate  woman  in  her  acute 
diarrhoea.  Mrs.  Seddon  will  tell  you  when  she  goes  into  the  witness-box 
that  she  bought  some  fly-papers,  and  she  will  tell  you  the  shop,  she  will 
tell  you  the  place  of  the  chemist  where  she  bought  them  early  in  Sep- 
tember, and  that  she  bought  them  in  consequence  of  a  request  of  Miss 
Barrow  that  something  should  be  done  to  mitigate  the  nuisance  of  these 
flies.  If  you  have  ever  been  ill  yourself  in  hot  weather,  you  will 
know  how  deplorable  a  thing  is  the  presence  of  flies  in  a  sick-room.  I 
suppose  there  is  no  source  of  irritation  in  a  serious  illness  that  is  so 
trying  as  the  constant  buzzing  and  settling  of  flies  upon  the  exposed 
parts  of  the  skin ;  I  suggest  to  you  that  there  is  nothing  more  terrible 
or  irritating  to  the  invalid  except,  of  course,  the  agonising  pain.  Mrs. 
Seddon  will  tell  you  in  her  evidence  that  in  consequence  of  the  request 
of  Miss  Barrow  that  something  should  be  done  to  mitigate  this  nuisance 
of  flies,  fly-papers,  or  something,  should  be  bought,  but  she  particularly 
requested  that  Mrs.  Seddon  should  not  buy  those  nasty,  sticky  things. 
You,  gentlemen,  probably  know  these  sticky  fly-papers — the  flies  with 
their  little  feet  stick  on  to  the  paper,  and  they  keep  buzzing,  buzzing, 
in  their  anxiety,  until  this  gummy  stuff  which  is  holding  them  to  death 
takes  effect.  I  think  you  will  agree  that  to  introduce  such  fly-papers 
into  a  sick-room,  the  remedy  is  worse  than  the  disease.  That 
is  why  this  other  form  of  fly-paper  is  so  popular — because  it  is  absolutely 
non-irritating ;  the  flies  drink  the  liquid  in  which  the  paper  is  put,  and  they 
do  not  die  in  the  liquid,  but  they  go  elsewhere  and  seek  their  place  of 
death  where  they  like,  having  been  poisoned  by  the  arsenic  in  the  liquid. 
146 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

Therefore  gentlemen,  for  what  it  is  worth,  it  is  admitted  that  in  this 
sick-room  there  were  fly-papers  put  early  in  September..  Mrs.  Seddon, 
racking  her  brain  to  think  of  any  possible  explanation  of  any  way  in 
which  this  could  have  got  accidentally  into  any  portion  of  the  food 
which  Miss  Barrow  may  have  taken,  can  think  of  nothing  except  that 
upon  one  occasion  the  contents  of  four  saucers  were  emptied  into  one 
plate,  and  she  is  not  quite  sure  of  what  was  done  with  the  plate  temporarily ; 
whether  it  was  put  on  the  wash-stand  she  is  not  able  to  say  definitely. 

Do  not  forget  that  it  is  no  part  of  my  case  here  to  prove  my  client's 
innocence.  The  presumption  is  that  he  is  innocent  until  that  presump- 
tion is  displaced  by  evidence  of  guilt.  It  is  not  for  the  defence  to  prove 
the  innocence  of  the  person  accused.  Therefore,  all  I  can  do  to  assist 
you  in  coming  to  a  right  conclusion  is  to  put  two  or  three  hypotheses 
before  you  upon  which  you  can  find  a  verdict  not  adverse  to  the  client 
I  represent. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  not  deal  with  that  in  any  further  detail.  At  some 
further  stage  of  this  case  after  the  evidence  is  concluded,  I  shall  have,  of 
course,  to  deal  rather  exhaustively  with  the  evidence,  and  to  put  before 
you  finally  the  position  I  take  up  on  the  part  of  my  client.  Of  course, 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  finish  this  case  this  week — quite  impossible — and 
there  will  be  some  opportunity  later  on  for  me  to  prepare  what  1  have  to 
say  when  all  the  evidence  is  concluded  and  the  cross-examination  is  over, 
and  I  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  finally  addressing  you.  My  learned 
friend,  the  Attorney-General,  whether  I  called  evidence  or  not,  would 
have  the  right  of  reply — the  right  inherent  in  his  great  office,  but,  of 
course,  now  there  is  no  question  of  his  having  right  in  his  official  capacity. 
I  am  going  to  call  evidence  as  to  facts,  and  therefore  he  would  be  entitled 
in  any  event  to  reply.  When  the  evidence  is  concluded  I  shall  address 
you,  and  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Rentoul,  will  address  you  on  behalf  of 
his  client;  then  my  learned  friend  will  reply,  and,  finally,  my  lord  will 
sum  up.  Gentlemen,  all  I  press  upon  you  is  this — to  keep  your  minds 
open.  Do  not  let  in  prejudice,  which  must  inevitably  tend  to  warp  your 
judgment  in  a  case  of  this  kind.  Be  men,  and  throw  it  away.  Do  not 
allow  prejudice  to  enter  your  mind.  If  it  does  influence  you,  let  it 
influence  you  in  favour  of  this  man;  because  it  is  more  dangerous  to  deal 
with  a  man  judicially  against  whom  you  are  prejudiced  than  it  is  to  deal 
with  a  man  against  whom  you  have  no  prejudice  at  all.  Prejudice  is  a 
grave  danger,  and  therefore,  as  prejudice  has  and  will  be  excited  in  this 
case  as  against  the  male  defendant — I  know  not  whether  it  will  be  excited 
against  the  female  defendant,  but,  as  it  will  be  excited  against  the  male 
defendant,  as  you  will,  of  course,  feel  that  if  there  is  a  true  case  against 
him,  it  is  a  cruel,  cowardly,  and  despicable  murder — let  this  be  in  your 
mind,  that  taking  all  things  together,  the  fact  that  this  man  has  for 
twenty-one  years  been  in  honest  and  respectable  employment  without 
complaint  of  any  sort  or  shape,  with  practically  unlimited  control  of 
money  for  a  time,  with  the  actual  power  of  paying  the  company's  money 
into  his  own  account  and  dealing  with  it  as  his  own  instead  of  as  their 
agent;  having  regard  to  all  this,  is  it  credible  that  a  man  would  have 
committed  a  murder  such  as  this  in  the  scientific  way  in  which  it  is  alleged 
that  he  did  it? 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


Do  not  forget  one  thing  more.  If  this  man  is  the  clever  poisoner 
that  you  must  find  him  if  you  accept  the  theory  of  the  prosecution,  is  it 
credible  that  he  was  not  one  little  bit  cleverer  still?  He  had  got  a 
medical  certificate  of  death.  It  is  admitted  that  on  the  body  as  it  lay 
there  were  no  objective  symptoms  from  which  that  certificate  could  have 
been  questioned.  He  had  only  to  get  another  medical  man  to  view  that 
body  and  give  him  a  certificate,  and,  within  a  few  yards  from  where  he 
lived,  that  body  could  have  been  taken  to  the  Golder's  Green  Crema- 
torium and  have  been  burnt  to  ashes.  Is  it  credible  that  a  man  who  is 
such  a  clever  poisoner  as  this  would  have  left  undone  that  final  piece 
of  skilful  work  which  he  is  supposed  to  have  done?  He  had  got  one 
doctor's  certificate;  it  is  volunteered  to  him;  he  did  not  even  ask  for  it; 
the  symptoms  are  admitted  to  be  identical  with  the  symptoms  of  epidemic 
diarrhoea.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  suspicion  against  him.  He  could 
have  had  the  body  cremated  merely  upon  the  production  of  a  second 
certificate;  that  is  all  the  law  requires.  You  have  to  have  the  certificate 
of  two  medical  men  as  to  the  cause  of  death,  and,  upon  the  production 
of  two  certificates,  the  body  could  have  been  cremated,  and  every  possible 
evidence  of  this  crime  would  have  disappeared. 

I  suggest,  first  of  all,  that  the  commission  of  such  a  crime  by  this 
man  is  incredible;  that  it  showed  a  knowledge  of  poisons  which  this  man 
never  possessed,  and  which  cannot  be  attributed  to  him.  Therefore,  it  is 
incredible,  and  almost  impossible,  that  he  committed  the  murder.  But 
I  submit  further  that  even  if  you  think  that  he  may  have  committed  the 
murder,  you  must  take  the  one  thing  with  the  other;  if  he  knew  so  much, 
if  he  was  so  hardened  a  criminal  that  he  could  deliberately  lay  himself 
out  to  commit  this  crime  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  money,  it  is  incredible 
that  he  should  not  have  taken,  as  he  could  have  taken,  this  one  step 
further ;  he  had  only  to  call  upon  Dr.  Paul,  who  lived  in  the  neighbour- 
hood, who  had  attended  to  this  woman  before,  who  had  seen  the  body 
and  knew  of  the  smell  in  the  room,  and  so  forth — everything  consistent 
with  death  from  epidemic  diarrhoea,  and  in  all  human  probability  that 
doctor  would  have  granted  a  second  certificate  upon  the  certificate  of 
Dr.  Sworn,  and  then  this  man  could  have  disposed  for  ever  of  all  evidence 
of  his  crime.  If  he  knew  as  much  as  is  attributed  to  him  by  the  prose- 
cution in  this  case;  if  he  had  studied  the  question  of  arsenical  poisoning, 
one  of  the  first  things  he  must  have  found  out  would  have  been  that 
which  has  been  brought  to  light  time  after  time  in  the  criminal  records 
of  this  very  Court,  that  arsenic  has  one  very  extraordinary  effect; 
it  preserves  the  body  instead  of  destroying  it;  it  preserves  the  evidence 
of  the  administration  of  the  deadly  poison,  so  that  it  is  ready  for  post- 
mortem examination  and  detection  at  a  later  date,  whenever  that  post- 
mortem examination  takes  place.  I  say  that  if  a  man  has  studied  suffi- 
ciently to  administer  arsenic  for  the  consideration  suggested  by  the  prose- 
cution, it  is  an  inference  that  you  must  draw  that  he  would  inevitably 
have  reckoned  that  the  danger  of  arsenical  poisoning  is  that  it  preserves 
the  body  from  any  destructive  change,  and  therefore  it  is  incredible  that 
a  man  who  has  the  iron  will  necessary  to  commit  a  murder  of  this  kind 
148 


Opening  Speech  for  Defence. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

should  not  go  one  step  further  and  destroy  the  body  of  his  victim,  and 
destroy  all  evidence  of  his  crime  by  having  the  body  cremated. 

Gentlemen,  as  I  say,  I  do  not  profess  to  have  dealt  exhaustively  with 
the  case  now,  or  to  have  dealt  with  it  even  in  its  general  bearings;  1 
have  merely  given  you  the  outline  of  the  line  of  defence  which  we  shall 
adopt  in  this  case.  I  will  call  my  witnesses  before  you,  and,  having 
called  them,  I  shall  ask  you  to  say  when  I  address  you  again,  whatever 
your  suspicions  may  be,  whatever  tne  prejudice  may  be,  that  there  is  no 
evidence  whatever  upon  which  you  can  possibly  convict,  and  therefore 
you  must  say  that,  as  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution  has  fallen  short 
of  the  quantum  of  proof  which  is  necessary  to  prove  the  crime  alleged 
against  this  man,  you  must  say  that  he  is  entitled  to  acquittal  at  your 
hands.  I  do  not  ask  that  he  shall  have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  but  he 
demands  at  your  hands  the  acquittal  which  every  man  in  this  country 
is  entitled  to,  unless  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution  is  sufficient  to  justify 
his  conviction. 

Evidence  for  the  Defence. 

SYDNEY  ARTHUR  NAYLOR,  examined  by  Mr.  DUNSTAN — I  am  a  member 
of  the  firm  of  Sydney  Naylor  &  Co.,  auctioneers,  256  High  Road,  Totten- 
ham. I  have  known  Seddon  for  about  six  years  or  more.  I  remember 
meeting  him  in  June  or  July,  1909,  in  connection  with  the  Legion  of 
Frontiersmen,  of  which  he  was  a  member.  After  the  meeting,  which 
was  held  in  the  Hornsey  Wood  Tavern,  Seven  Sisters  Road,  we  went  to 
his  shop,  which  was  also  in  the  Seven  Sisters  Road ;  he  had  a  wardrobe 
business  there.  He  said  he  was  doing  very  well  there,  and,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  he  produced  several  costumes  to  me  that  he  had  purchased  for  a 
very  low  figure,  and  which  he  anticipated  he  would  sell  for  very  good 
sums.  I  think  he  mentioned  that  he  would  probably  get  35s.  for  some- 
thing that  he  had  bought  for  5s.,  or  something  like  that.*  After  supper 
we  were  discussing  business  generally,  and  Mr.  Seddon  spoke  about  his 
insurance  business  and  his  wardrobe  business,  saying  how  successful  he 
was,  and  the  profits  he  was  making,  and  so  forth.  He  left  the  room  and 
returned  with  a  bag  of  gold  which  he  showed  to  me.  He  mentioned  the 
amount  was  about  £200 ;  I  formed  the  opinion  that  it  was  something 
between  £150  and  £200. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Mr.  Seddon  lived  over 
the  wardrobe  shop  in  Seven  Sisters  Road.  He  mentioned  that  he  had 
the  money  that  I  have  told  about  by  him  in  order  to  pick  up  any  cheap 
stocks — that  he  would  have  to  pay  cash  when  they  would  not  accept  a 
cheque.  I  could  not  exactly  say  when  he  ceased  to  carry  that  business 
on,  but  I  understand  he  was  in  the  business  for  about  twelve  months.  I 
believe  he  went  from  Seven  Sisters  Road  to  Tollington  Park,  where  there 
was  only  his  insurance  business  carried  on. 

WILLIAM  JOHN  WILSON,  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  a 
post  office  employee,  and  I  live  at  81  St.  Stephen's  Avenue.  I  was 
present  on  the  occasion  when  Mr.  Seddon  and  Mr.  Naylor  were  together 

149 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

William  John  Wilson 

in  1909.  During  the  evening  Mr.  Seddon  produced  a  bag  of  gold,  but 
he  did  not  say  how  much  was  in  it.  I  estimated  the  amount  at  about 
£200. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — About  two  months  ago, 
or  somewhere  about  that,  I  was  asked  if  I  knew  anything  about  this 
case.  The  money  was  in  a  buff-coloured  bag,  a  plain  bag,  with  no  name 
on  it  whatever.  It  looked  to  me  to  be  a  rather  rough  paper  bag.  Seddon 
told  me  that  it  was  gold  that  was  in  it;  he  opened  it,  and  put  his  hand 
in,  and  withdrew  some  of  the  coin  and  showed  it  to  me. 

SYDNEY  ARTHUR  NAYLOR,  recalled,  further  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL 
HALL — When  I  saw  the  account  of  this  case  in  the  papers  at  the  Police  Court 
I  wrote  to  Mr.  Seddon  about  the  gold. 

FREDERICK  HENRY  SEDDON  (prisoner,  on  oath),  examined  by  Mr. 
MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  forty  years  of  age.  At  the  time  of  my  arrest  I 
was  living  at  63  Tollington  Park.  I  had  been  in  the  employment  of  the 
London  and  Manchester  Industrial  Insurance  Company  since  I  was  nine- 
teen years  of  age.  I  have  held  the  position  of  district  superintendent 
since  1896,  and  district  superintendent  for  the  Islington  district  since 
1901.  I  have  had  a  constant  progress  in  the  way  of  my  position  in  the 
business.  The  other  prisoner  is  my  wife.  We  have  been  married  a  great 
many  years,  and  we  have  five  children  living,  the  eldest  being  William, 
who  is  seventeen ;  then  Margaret,  who  is  sixteen ;  Frederick,  fifteen  ;  Ada, 
eight ;  and  Lily,  who  was  born  in  the  beginning  of  January  of  last  year. 
About  eight  years  ago  I  purchased  57  Isledon  Road.  Since  that  date  I 
have  purchased  63  Tollington  Park  and  other  property  since  I  have 
resided  in  Tollington  Park.  I  made  a  profit  on  Isledon  Road.  I  invested 
£400  in  Cardiff  stock,  which  I  still  have.  I  have  always  been  in  the 
habit  of  keeping  money  in  hand — never  less  than  £50 — since  I  have  been 
in  London. 

Just  prior  to  February,  1909,  I  lived  at  Southend  for  twelve  months, 
coming  up  to  town  every  day.  I  then  took  a  house  and  shop  at  267 
Seven  Sisters  Road,  where  the  business  of  a  ladies'  wardrobe  dealer  was 
carried  on  in  my  wife's  name,  Rowen.  I  found  the  money  for  stocking 
the  shop.  I  think  it  was  in  September  of  the  same  year  that  I  bought 
the  second  safe ;  I  had  had  one  for  several  years.  The  profits  that  came 
from  the  wardrobe  business  I  kept  on  hand  to  replenish  the  shop  should 
a  bargain  ever  turn  up.  The  profits  were  not  banked,  and  until  I  had  the 
safe  I  kept  them  in  a  roll-top  desk ;  afterwards  I  kept  them  in  the  safe 
in  the  bedroom.  My  other  safe  was  in  the  office  in  Seven  Sisters  Road. 

I  remember  the  evening  that  has  been  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Naylor 
when  the  money  was  produced.  I  could  not  say  how  much  gold  there 
was  in  the  bag,  but  there  might  have  been  anything  from  £100  to  £130 
or  £150.  That  would  be  the  balance  of  some  money  I  had  after  purchas- 
ing stock  and  profits  accumulated  up  to  that  date.  On  the  occasion  that 
I  showed  it  to  these  two  men  I  took  it  from  the  pigeon-holes  in  my 
secretaire. 

In  August,  1909,  I  entered  into  negotiations  with  Messrs.  Ramsay  & 
Wainwright,  279  Seven  Sisters  Road,  for  the  purchase  of  63  Tollington 
150 


Frederick  H.  Seddon. 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Park.  I  believe  I  had  sold  £100  worth  of  Cardiff  stock  for  the  purpose 
of  starting  my  wife  in  this  business,  and  that  left  me  with  £300  worth 
of  Cardiff  stock.  I  forget  exactly  the  price  that  was  asked  for  the  house, 
63  Tollington  Park,  but  I  reduced  the  figure  down  to  £320.  I  had 
somewhere  about  £200  in  gold  on  hand  at  this  date,  and  then  I  intended 
to  sell  a  portion  of  the  Cardiff  stock  to  make  up  the  £320.  Somewhere 
about  this  time  that  the  arrangement  was  made,  I  paid  Mr.  Wainwright 
a  deposit  of  £15.  I  took  my  gold  bag  out  of  the  secretaire  and  extracted 
£15  from  it  in  cash,  and  he  said,  "  Oh,  a  cheque  will  do  for  me,  Seddon," 
and  I  gave  him  a  cheque  and  put  the  gold  back  into  the  secretaire.  Mr. 
Wainwright  suggested  I  should  get  a  mortgage,  and  when  he  explained 
to  me  the  object  I  fell  in  with  the  suggestion.  I  eventually  got  £220 
lent  on  mortgage,  leaving  a  balance  of  £85  after  taking  into  account 
the  £15  deposit.  I  sold  £100  worth  of  Cardiff  stock,  which  realised 
something  like  £85. 

About  this  time,  the  end  of  1909,  my  wife  and  I  had  a  little  difference 
on  family  matters,  and  there  was  a  separation  for  a  short  time.  In 
consequence  of  that  I  had  to  shut  down  the  wardrobe  business,  because 
it  was  not  a  business  that  I  could  engage  in.  I  practically  gave  away 
the  stock  to  Mr.  Keegan  for  £30.  I  had  previously  opened  a  Post  Office 
Savings  Bank  account,  and  I  opened  another  account  with  this  money 
on  17th  January,  1910.  That  did  not  affect  the  £200  approximately 
which  I  had  in  gold.  I  had  the  idea  at  first  of  letting  No.  63  Tollington 
Park  in  flats,  but  not  having  let  it^  I  moved  in  there  and  lived  in  the 
house,  somewhere  about  the  end  of  January  of  1910.  My  wife  had 
then  returned  to  me.  I  transferred  my  office  to  the  basement  of  63 
Tollington  Park,  and  I  occupied  the  whole  of  the  house  except  the  top 
floor.  The  safe  that  I  had  in  the  office  in  Seven  Sisters  Road  I  removed 
into  the  basement  office  at  Tollington  Park,  and  the  bedroom  safe  was 
already  there  with  my  household  goods  in  the  bedroom.  I  counted  my 
cash  before  I  left  the  shop,  and  I  counted  it  again  on  my  removal  into 
Tollington  Park.  There  was  about  £220  or  £230,  which  was  all  my 
own.  I  kept  it  on  hand  to  pay  up  the  mortgage  at  any  time  desired.  In 
case  of  burglary  I  kept  £100  I  believe  in  the  lower  safe  and  £100  in  the 
bedroom  safe,  and  the  £20  I  kept  in  loose  cash  in  an  ordinary  £5  silver 
bag  in  the  bedroom  safe  on  the  shelf.  The  £100  in  the  office  safe  was 
kept  in  one  bag.  A  £5  silver  bag  should  hold  about  £100  of  gold — it 
did,  at  all  events. 

In  the  event  of  anything  happening  to  you,  there  would  have  been 
the  ready  money  to  pay  off  the  mortgage? — Yes. 

So  that  your  wife  could  pay  it  off  and  she  would  have  the  house? — 
Without  any  delay.  My  second  floor  had  been  occupied  up  to  June, 
1910,  and  then  it  was  vacant,  and  I  instructed  Gilbert  &  Howe,  house 
agents,  Crouch  Hill,  to  obtain  a  tenant.  In  July,  1910,  Miss  Barrow 
called  at  Tollington  Park  with  Mrs.  Hook,  and  saw  my  wife  and  inspected 
the  rooms.  Eventually  she  agreed  to  become  my  tenant  at  a  weekly  rent 
of  12s.  for  the  four  rooms  on  the  top  floor.  The  tenancy  commenced 
about  the  end  of  July.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook  and  Ernest  Grant  came  with 
her  to  live  in  the  house.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook  stayed  something  between 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

ten  days  and  a  fortnight.  I  was  not  at  home  when  they  arrived  in  the 
house. 

Just  tell  us  the  details  of  how  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook  came  to  leave? — 
They  were  creating  a  disturbance  in  the  house  which  I  was  not  used  to ; 
they  proved  undesirable  tenants.  There  had  been  a  quarrel  on  the 
Saturday,  and  I  gave  them  all  notice  to  quit — Miss  Barrow  and  all.  Miss 
Barrow  said  she  did  not  want  to  leave,  that  the  cause  of  the  trouble  was 
Mr.  Hook.  She  was  afraid  of  him,  and  I  said,  "  Well,  of  course,  this 
kind  of  thing  cannot  go  on."  She  asked  if  I  would  speak  to  him,  and  I 
said,  "  Well,  you  had  better  speak  to  him  yourself."  This  would  be  on 
the  Saturday,  I  think.  On  the  Sunday  Hook  and  his  wife  went  out  all 
day,  taking  the  boy  with  them,  and  left  the  old  lady  absolutely  unattended, 
and  she  could  not  attend  or  wait  on  herself.  My  wife  and  daughter 
informed  me  that  she  was  crying  all  day.  I  said,  "  Well,  I  will  see  what 
he  means  about  it  when  he  comes  home,"  because  I  understood  that  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Hook  had  come  to  occupy  rooms  with  Miss  Barrow  on  the 
express  condition  that  they  would  look  after  her,  and  the  wife  was  going 
to  do  the  cooking  and  keep  the  rooms  clean  and  show  her  how  to  look 
after  herself.  There  was  absolutely  no  arrangement  when  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Hook  and  Miss  Barrow  came  that  my  wife  or  any  servant  of  mine  should 
do  any  cooking.  I  should  not  have  taken  them  on  such  a  condition.  Miss 
Barrow  gave  Hook  notice  to  quit  to  satisfy  me,  because  I  said  that  they  all 
had  to  go.  Miss  Barrow  wrote  to  Mr.  Ilook,  "  Mr  Hook,  as  you  and  your 
wife  have  treated  me  so  badly,"  &c.  (Reads.)  The  answer  to  that  is  exhibit 
24,  "  Miss  Barrow,  as  you  are  so  impertinent  to  send  the  letter  you  have, 
I  wish  to  inform  you."  (Reads.)*  At  that  time  Mr.  Hook's  conduct  to 
Miss  Barrow  was  very  abrupt,  rather  cruel. 

Did  you  in  any  way  incite  or  suggest  to  Miss  Barrow  that  she  should 
get  rid  of  the  Hooks? — Absolutely  no.  Miss  Barrow  communicated  to 
me  the  answer  that  she  had  received  from  Hook.  She  was  distressed  at 
the  idea  of  Ernie  going.  She  said  to  me,  "  As  landlord,  can  you  not 
tell  him  to  go?  "  I  told  her  she  was  my  tenant,  not  Hook,  but  that 
I  should  certainly  give  him  notice  to  go  if  she  so  desired  it.  I  waited  for 
him  till  late  that  night,  and  when  he  went  into  his  room  I  knocked  at  the 
door,  but  he  would  not  open  the  door,  and  I  said,  "  Well,  the  notice  is 
for  you  on  the  door."  I  gave  a  formal  notice  to  quit — I  think  it  was 
typewritten.  After  Hook  found  the  notice  on  his  door  he  came  down  to 
see  me  the  next  day  in  the  drawing-room.  I  told  him  I  was  not  used 
to  this  kind  of  conduct  in  my  home,  and  I  did  not  intend  to  tolerate  it 
under  any  circumstances ;  that  he  must  get  out  according  to  the  notice 
I  had  left  on  his  door ;  it  was  Miss  Barrow's  desire,  and  she  claimed  my 
protection. 

While  the  Hooks  were  in  the  house  I  became  aware  of  the  fact  that 
Miss  Barrow  had  a  cash  box ;  I  did  not  know  it  before.  She  was  terribly 
upset  at  the  bother  that  the  Hooks  had  created,  and  she  came  down 
into  the  dining-room,  where  my  wife  and  daughter  were,  and  she  asked 
me  to  shut  the  door.  She  asked  if  I  would  put  her  cash  box  in  my  safe, 
as  she  was  afraid  Hook  might  take  it  with  him  when  he  was  leaving.  I 

*  See  Appendix  A. 
152 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

asked  her  how  much  money  she  had  in  the  box,  and  she  said  between 
£30  and  £35.  I  said,  "  I  should  not  like  to  take  the  responsibility  of 
minding  your  cash  box  if  you  are  not  sure  how  much  is  in  it,  without 
you  count  it  out  in  my  presence,  and  I  will  give  you  a  receipt  for  the  box 
and  its  contents."  I  thought  she  would  agree  to  count  it  out  there  and 
then.  She  said  she  would  take  it  upstairs  and  make  sure  how  much 
was  in  it,  and  then  she  went  upstairs.  I  naturally  waited  for  her  to  come 
down  with  the  box  to  tell  me  how  much  was  in  it,  but  she  did  not  return. 
My  wife  or  daughter  said  that  she  had  locked  herself  in  her  bedroom. 
I  had  my  own  business  to  go  out  and  attend  to,  and  I  did  not  trouble 
any  further.  I  did  not  see  that  cash  box  again  during  Miss  Barrow's 
life.  I  believe  the  cash  box  that  has  been  produced  in  this  case  is  the 
same  one. 

Hook  left  that  day.  I  think  his  brother  William  paid  for  the  removal. 
Miss  Barrow  gave  it  to  him,  of  course.  I  told  Miss  Barrow  she  ought 
to  get  a  servant  in  to  look  after  her,  and  she  asked  if  my  daughter 
Maggie  could  not  look  after  her,  and  she  agreed  to  give  her  a  shilling  a 
day  pocket  money.  Maggie  was  to  look  after  her  rooms,  cook,  and  do 
everything,  but  she  was  not  to  do  the  washing. 

In  consequence  of  something  my  wife  and  daughter  said  to  me,  I 
had  an  interview  with  Miss  Barrow  in  the  month  of  August,  1910.  I 
saw  Miss  Barrow  about  some  property  somewhere  in  the  autumn  of  1910. 
My  wife  and  daughter  told  me  that  Miss  Barrow  was  continually  crying, 
and  very  despondent  and  greatly  worried  about  her  properties.  When 
they  told  me  that  I  had  no  knowledge  as  to  what  Miss  Barrow's  property 
consisted  of.  I  said,  "  What  has  she  got  to  worry  about?  I  understand 
she  has  got  plenty."  They  requested  me  to  see  Miss  Barrow,  but  I  did 
not  see  her  then ;  I  was  approached  on  several  occasions  before  I  troubled 
about  it.  I  told  my  wife  that  I  would  have  a  chat  with  Miss  Barrow  as 
soon  as  I  had  time.  She  came  down  one  Sunday  in  the  month  of 
September  into  the  dining-room,  and  had  a  chat  with  me  about  her 
property.  I  asked  her  what  she  was  worrying  about,  what  was  her 
trouble  that  she  was  always  crying,  was  she  not  satisfied  with  the  way 
Maggie  was  looking  after  her?  and  she  said,  "  Yes,  that  she  was  perfectly 
happy,  but  it  was  her  property  that  was  worrying  her."  She  said  she 
had  a  public-house  at  Camden  Town  called  the  Buck's  Head,  and  it  was 
the  principal  source  of  her  income ;  she  had  had  a  lot  of  trouble  with  the 
ground  landlords,  and  she  said  that  Lloyd  George's  Budget  had  upset 
licensed  premises  by  increased  taxation ;  that  her  tenants,  Truman, 
Hanbury,  Buxton  &  Co.,  had  a  lot  of  licensed  houses,  and  she  was  afraid 
they  might  have  to  close  some  of  them,  and  she  said,  "  Whatever  would 
I  do  if  I  lost  them  as  tenants?  I  would  not  be  able  to  let  the  premises 
again."  She  thought  the  barber's  shop  next  door  depended  a  lot  upon 
the  public-house  for  his  customers,  and  if  she  lost  them  it  would  mean 
nearly  £3  a  week  to  her.  I  asked  her  how  many  years  her  lease  had  to 
run,  and  she  said  she  thought  it  was  about  seventeen  years.  She  said 
that  Truman,  Hanbury  &  Buxton  were  tenants  throughout  the  term, 
but  she  had  an  idea  that  if  they  had  to  close  the  public-house  they  would 
give  it  up  certainly  because  they  had  complained  that  customers  were 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

bad  and  that  they  could  not  renovate  the  place.     I  did  not  say  to  her 
that  they  would  huve  to  pay  the  rent  whether  they  gave  it  up  or  not. 

At  a  later  stage  she  produced  some  correspondence  that  she  had  had 
about  this.  I  asked  her  about  what  her  other  source  of  income  was,  and 
she  told  me  that  she  had  got  some  India  stock  that  she  had  lost  a  lot  of 
money  on.  She  produced  a  paper  showing  that  she  had  paid  as  much  as 
108  for  it  and  at  that  time  it  was  down  at  94,  and  that  worried  her. 
She  told  me  that  she  had  £1600  stock  which  had  cost  her  about  £1780. 
I  said  that  it  was  a  gilt-edged  security,  and  there  did  not  seem  very 
much  to  worry  about;  I  said,  "  That  will  keep  you  out  of  the  workhouse 
anyway."  I  asked  her  what  she  wanted,  and  she  said  she  would  like  to 
purchase  an  annuity  the  same  as  a  friend  of  hers.  I  did  not  know  the 
name  of  the  friend  until  I  got  it — Mrs.  Smith — from  Vonderahe  at  the 
interview  after  Miss  Barrow's  death.  I  told  Miss  Barrow  that  she  must 
remember  that  an  annuity  died  with  her,  and  she  said  that  she  did 
not  mind  that,  that  she  had  only  herself  to  consider  as  her  friends — her 
relatives — had  treated  her  badly.  She  said  that  if  she  could  get  an 
annuity  of  between  £2  10s.  and  £3  a  week  she  would  be  pleased.  I  asked 
her  what  was  the  value  of  her  public-house  and  barber's  shop  ;  she  said 
she  did  not  know,  and  she  was  not  sure  whether  her  title  was  clear  or 
whether  she  had  power  to  sell.  "Well,"  I  said,  "  look  here,  the  best 
thing  you  can  do  is  to  consult  a  solicitor."  She  said  she  had  had  quite 
enough  of  solicitors,  that  they  had  not  been  any  good  to  her  over  the 
compensation  dilemma,  they  charged  too  much.  I  said,  "  If  you  want 
an  annuity,  the  best  thing  for  you  to  do  is  to  go  to  the  Post  Office." 
think  that  ended  the  interview  on  that  day.  I  never  at  any  time  got 
anything  for  her  from  the  Post  Office.  She  produced  a  prospectus — an 
annuity  prospectus. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  call  for  that  document,  which  was  found  by 
the  police.     (Document  produced  and  handed  to  witness.) 

That  is  exactly  as  it  was  produced  by  the  police  after  your  arrest 
and  before  you  had  any  opportunity  of  dealing  with  the  documents? — 
Yes,  this  is  the  very  one  she  brought  herself.  First  she  told  me  that 
her  age  was  forty-eight,  and  I  marked  it  off.  I  asked  her  if  she  was 
sure  that  she  was  forty-eight,  and  she  said,  "  No,"  she  was  forty-nine, 
and  so  I  said,  "  You  will  get  that  for  7s.  a  year  less."  I  put  the  mark 
on  it.  She  asked  me  to  explain  this,  and  I  told  her  she  would  have  to 
pay  £1700  to  produce  £100  or  something  over.  Her  objection  was  that 
she  would  have  to  part  with  that  £1700  first,  and  wait  six  months  before 
she  would  get  any  return,  as  the  annuity  was  only  paid  half-yearly.  She 
was  not  sure  whether  she  could  sell  the  property  until  the  title  was 
investigated,  as  I  advised  her  to  have  it  investigated.  I  will  not  swear 
that  this  is  the  document  I  handed  to  the  coroner  on  23rd  November.  I 
believe  it  passed  out  of  my  custody  into  the  custody  of  the  coroner  then 
— anyhow  it  has  never  been  in  my  custody  until  now.  When  Miss  Barrow 
pointed  out  this  difficulty  with  regard  to  the  Post  Office  annuity  she  asked 
if  I  could  not  grant  her  an  annuity — she  said,  "  Could  I  not  grant  the 
annuity?  "  I  calculated  it  on  this  basis — I  took  into  consideration  the 
Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's  shop  and  the  £1600  India  3|  per  cent, 
stock,  and  I  calculated  that  with  that  I  could  grant  her  with  safety  an 
154 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

annuity  of  between  £2  10s.  and  £3  a  week.  I  took  into  consideration 
that  if  I  paid  her  £10  a  month  and  allowed  her  to  live  rent  free,  it  was 
between  £3  and  £3  2s.  a  week.  That  is  altogether  £151  5s.  per  annum, 
and  that  is  what  I  was  prepared  to  do.  At  that  time  I  did  not  know  the 
actuarial  value  of  the  public-house  property,  but  I  was  taking  it  on  its 
yield  at  about  £3  or  £4  a  week.  On  14th  October,  1910,  the  India  stock 
was  transferred  to  me.  Before  the  bargain  could  be  legally  finally 
concluded  it  was  necessary  to  get  a  valuation  of  the  Buck's  Head  property, 
also  to  satisfy  Miss  Barrow  as  to  her  power  to  convey,  and  therefore  there 
was  no  transfer  of  that  at  this  period.  The  payment  of  the  actual 
annuity  was  not  begun  until  the  New  Year ;  she  said  she  would  be  very 
pleased  if  I  could  commence  at  the  New  Year.  With  the  proceeds  of  the 
India  stock  which  I  sold,  I  bought  some  houses,  but  that  was  not  until  three 
or  four  months  afterwards.  The  whole  of  the  proceeds  of  the  East  India 
stock  and  the  Buck's  Head  property  are  intact  and  held  under  an  order 
of  the  Court  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — There  must  be  no  misapprehension  about  this 
at  all,  gentlemen.  There  was  an  order — perhaps  by  consent  I  ought  to 
say — under  which  that  property  is  at  the  present  moment  locked  up, 
so  to  speak,  in  case  of  any  possible  question  about  any  will.  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  this  man ;  it  has  been  done  by  consent. 

Examination  continued — I  think  it  was  about  the  end  of  January, 
1911,  when  I  sold  the  India  stock.  I  had  begun  making  investigations 
with  regard  to  the  Camden  Town  property  in  October,  but  these  investi- 
gations took  a  long  time.  (Shown  letter  dated  15th  October,  1910,  from 
Eliza  Mary  Barrow  to  F.  H.  Seddon,  exhibit  150) — That  is  in  Miss  Barrow's 
handwriting,  and  it  is  as  follows: — "  Be  the  Buck's  Head  public-house, 
202  High  Street,  N.W.,  also  hairdresser's  shop  adjoining,  i.e.,  1  Buck 
Street,  N.W.  Dear  sir, — You  are  at  liberty  to  have  my  title  to  the 
above  properties  investigated  to  know  that  I  have  power  to  transfer  my 
interests  in  the  same  to  you.  For  this  purpose,  I  place  all  my  documents 
relating  to  same  in  your  hands.  (Of  course,  any  legal  expense  that  may 
be  incurred  to  be  paid  by  yourself  when  the  transfer  has  been  completed.) 
Please  arrange  for  the  completion  of  transfer  as  early  as  possible.  I 
am  writing  to  my  tenants  instructions  to  forward  rents  in  future  direct 
and  payable  to  you." 

I  took  the  documents  down  personally  to  explain  the  situation  to  Mr. 
Keeble,  clerk  with  Messrs.  Russell  <fc  Sons,  he  being  the  gentleman  who 
had  the  matter  in  hand.  There  was  a  correspondence  between  Messrs. 
Russell  &  Sons  and  myself  and  Miss  Barrow  with  reference  to  the  dealing 
with  the  Buck's  Head  property.  I  believe  at  this  time  Miss  Barrow  was 
attending  Dr.  Paul  off  and  on.  I  asked  Messrs.  Robson  &  Perrin  to  make 
a  valuation,  and  they  sent  me  a  valuation  from  Mr.  Brangwin,  auctioneer 
and  valuer.  The  facts  upon  which  that  valuation  is  based  are  accurate. 
Negotiations  went  on  till  4th  January,  1911,  when  the  following  letter 
was  written  by  Miss  Barrow  to  Messrs.  Russell: — "Re  the  Buck's  Head 
public-house,  '202  High  Street,  N.W.,  and  the  hairdresser's  shop  adjoin- 
ing, No.  1  Buck  Street,  N.W.  Mr.  Keeble,  Messrs.  Russell  &  Sons, 
solicitors,  59  Coleman  Street,  E.G.  Dear  Sir, — I  regret  I  was  unable 
to  call  upon  you  to-day  with  Mr.  Seddon  as  requested  by  your  letter  to 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

him  of  the  3rd  inst.  However,  I  understand  from  him  that  you  are 
preparing  a  deed  of  conveyance  of  these  properties  to  Mr.  Frederick 
Henry  Seddon,  entitling  him  to  receive  rents  and  take  over  liabilities  and 
responsibilities  connected  with  these  properties  from  quarter  day,  25th 
December  last,  in  consideration  of  a  life  annuity  of  £52  per  annum  (one 
pound  weekly)  payable  to  me  by  him.  These  arrangements  I  am  quite 
agreeable  to,  and  will  arrange  to  be  at  home  between  3  and  4  p.m.  on 
Friday  next  to  meet  you  to  sign  deed  of  conveyance.  Yours  faithfully, 
Eliza  Mary  Barrow." 

Messrs.  Russell  advised  that  Miss  Barrow  should  be  separately 
represented,  and  I  quite  concurred.  She  was  separately  represented  by 
Mr.  Knight,  but  she  would  not  pay  any  money  for  his  fees.  She  said 
I  might  take  all  the  legal  steps  I  liked  if  I  defrayed  the  expenses.  I 
paid  the  whole  of  Messrs.  Russell's  fees  and  a  separate  cheque  for  £4  13s. 
for  Mr.  Knight.  I  explained  to  Miss  Barrow  that  the  fees  were  tre- 
mendously heavy — heavier  than  I  anticipated,  and  I  felt  under  the 
circumstances  she  ought  to  pay  Mr.  Knight's  fee.  She  said  she  had  no 
money  to  spare,  and  later  on  she  brought  me  down  a  small  diamond  ring 
and  made  me  a  present  of  that.  I  wore  that  diamond  ring  on  my  little 
finger  until  after  Miss  Barrow's  death,  and  then  I  had  it  made  to  fit  this 
other  finger  (indicating).  I  have  a  diamond  ring  of  my  own,  which  is 
four  times  the  value  of  that  ring. 

On  9th  January  Mr.  Knight  wrote  to  Miss  Barrow  saying  that  he 
would  attend  at  her  house  on  Wednesday,  the  llth,  to  witness  her 
execution  of  the  assignment.  Miss  Barrow  wrote  to  Messrs.  Russell  on 
10th  January,  saying  that  she  trusted  there  would  be  no  further  delay 
as  she  wished  the  matter  to  be  completed.  On  llth  January  the  assign- 
ment, exhibit  11,  took  place.  Mr.  Knight  was  present  and  witnessed 
Miss  Barrow's  signature.  There  is  a  clause  in  the  deed  charging  that 
portion  of  the  annuity  of  £52  a  year  upon  the  property  whilst  it  existed. 
The  annuity  was  to  be  paid  on  the  first  of  every  month.  I  paid  her 
£10  in  advance  in  the  first  week  in  January,  and  I  continued  to  pay 
<£lO  per  month  regularly  in  advance.  I  always  got  two  receipts,  £4  for 
the  property  and  £6  for  the  stock.  The  letter,  exhibit  82,  is  the  letter 
she  wrote  to  the  Surveyor  of  Income  Tax  stating  that  she  was  in  receipt 
of  £124  per  annum  for  value  received.  (Two  series  of  receipts  dating 
from  llth  January,  1911,  to  6th  September,  1911,  showing  that  £4  or 
£5  or  £6  a  month  had  been  received  from  the  prisoner  by  Miss  Barrow 
in  respect  of  the  property  and  stock  respectively  every  month,  were  put 
to  the  witness.)  All  these  receipts  are  in  Miss  Barrow's  handwriting. 
The  first  of  the  first  series  is  as  follows: — ''Life  Annuity,  llth  January, 
1911.  Received  from  Mr.  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  the  sum  of  £5, 
being  five  weeks'  annuity  allowance  as  arranged  on  assignment  of  property 
situated  at  Buck's  Head,  Camden  Town,  N.W.,  and  barber's  shop  adjoin- 
ing, up  to  and  including  30th  January,  1911,  from  25th  December,  1910. 
Eliza  Mary  Barrow."  The  first  of  the  other  series  is — "  6th  January, 
1911.  Received  from  Mr.  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  the  sum  of  £6,  being 
the  monthly  allowance  as  arranged  in  consideration  of  the  transfer  of 
£1600  India  3£  per  cent,  stock."  I  handed  these  receipts  to  Mr.  Saint, 
my  solicitor,  after  the  first  inquest  and  before  I  was  arrested.  In  January, 

156 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

1911,  I  instructed  Capel-Cure  &  Terry  to  sell  £1600  of  India  stock,  I 
having  entered  into  negotiations  to  buy  certain  leasehold  property  in 
Coutts  Road,  Stepney.  The  stock  was  sold  on  25th  January,  and  realised 
£1519  16s.  A  cheque  for  that  amount  was  handed  to  me,  and  I  placed 
£1400  on  deposit  at  the  bank  on  which  it  was  drawn  (this  was  just 
sufficient  to  pay  for  the  property),  and  I  drew  the  remaining  £119  16s. 

At  this  time  what  had  become  of  the  £220  which  you  had  in  your 
safe? — I  have  still  got  it.  I  put  the  £119  16s.  into  the  London  and 
Provincial  Bank  as  far  as  I  can  remember.  Being  shown  my  pass-book, 
exhibit  36 — On  1st  February,  1911,  there  is  an  entry  of  £50  to  my  credit 
in  current  account.  I  opened  a  deposit  account  with  the  other  £70. 
On  6th  March  I  drew  the  £1400  and  paid  for  the  fourteen  leasehold 
houses  in  Coutts  Road,  Stepney,  less  £70,  which  I  had  already  paid  as 
a  deposit  by  a  cheque  drawn  by  my  solicitor  on  my  current  account. 
Under  "  2nd  February "  in  my  current  account  there  is  an  item, 
"  Hickman,  Property  £70."  On  7th  March  I  paid  a  further  £30  into 
my  deposit  account  at  the  London  and  Provincial  Bank,  bringing  it  up 
to  £100.  At  that  time  I  had  the  £100  deposit  at  my  bank  and  I  had 
the  £220  in  gold  in  my  safe. 

My  father  came  to  live  with  me  about  the  end  of  February.  Miss 
Barrow  wrote  me  the  letter  dated  27th  March,  1911,  exhibit  7.*  I  think 
Miss  Barrow  was  in  a  very  despondent  state  when  that  letter  was  written. 
She  had  been  out  and  had  seen  the  funeral  of  somebody  that  she  knew, 
and  then  she  came  in  talking  about  funerals  and  death  and  one  thing  and 
another,  and  she  said,  "  How  would  it  be  if  anything  happened  to  her 
now  regarding  the  furniture  and  the  jewellery  that  she  had  got  which 
belonged  to  Ernest  and  Hilda  Grant's  parents  1"  I  told  her  that  she 
ought  to  make  a  will  because  she  was  afraid  of  either  the  Hooks  coming 
into  possession  of  it  or  that  her  relations  should  get  it.  I  told  her  that 
her  nearest  relatives  would  come  into  possession  unless  she  made  a  will. 
I  suggested  that  she  ought  to  have  a  solicitor,  but  whenever  she  heard 
the  name  of  "solicitor"  she  got  annoyed.  I  then  went  away,  and 
when  I  came  back  at  night  I  got  that  letter  from  my  wife,  it  having 
been  handed  to  her  by  Miss  Barrow  in  my  absence.  I  took  it  that  she 
meant  the  letter  to  be  a  kind  of  will,  and  I  put  it  away  in  my  secretaire. 
On  30th  May,  1911,  I  took  the  notice  to  the  Surveyor  of  Income  Tax 
and  he  said,  "Oh,  this  is  not  necessary;  you  will  be  charged  with  it 
and  you  can  deduct  it  off  her." 

About  this  time  there  was  trouble  with  the  Birkbeck  Bank,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  Miss  Barrow  consulted  me.  She  asked  me — Could  my 
missus  go  up  with  her  to  draw  her  money  out  of  the  bank  in  Upper 
Street,  and  I  asked  her  why,  and  she  said  "  It  looks  as  if  all  the  banks 
are  going  smash."  There  had  previously  been  the  Charing  Cross  Bank 
and  then  the  Birkbeck  Bank  on  top  of  it ;  she  had  been  deeply  interested 
in  this,  and  I  think  it  was  the  only  occasion  on  which  she  had  bought 
the  newspaper.  On  19th  June  Miss  Barrow  and  my  wife  went  to  the 
bank  and  drew  out  £216  9s.  7d.  I  have  never  seen  that  money.  My 
wife  told  me  that  she  had  brought  it  into  the  house  in  gold,  and  I  diij 

*  See  Appendix  F. 

157 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

not  like  the  idea.  I  told  her  I  did  not  consider  that  her  trunk  was  a 
very  safe  thing  to  keep  such  a  sum  of  money  as  that,  and  especially  in 
my  house. 

On  1st  August  Miss  Barrow  went  to  see  Dr.  Paul,  accompanied,  I 
believe,  by  my  wife.  From  5th  to  8th  August  we  were  all  at  Southend. 
The  last  week  in  August  and  the  first  week  in  September  were  intensely 
hot.  Miss  Barrow  and  the  boy  Ernie  often  used  to  go  into  the  garden. 
The  boy  was  very  friendly  with  my  children — they  were  his  only  play- 
mates. I  believe  Miss  Barrow  and  the  boy  had  their  meals  in  their  own 
kitchen  upstairs.  I  understand  that  she  always  bought  her  own  food, 
and  it  was  cooked  by  my  little  girl  Maggie  up  in  her  own  kitchen.  I 
could  not  say  whether  on  some  occasions  the  food  was  cooked  downstairs 
by  my  wife. 

When  the  boy  first  came  to  the  house  he  slept  with  Miss  Barrow.  I 
advised  her  to  buy  a  small  bed  and  to  let  him  occupy  the  same  room, 
which  she  did  until  she  took  ill  on  2nd  September.  On  1st  September 
my  wife  told  me  that  Miss  Barrow  had  a  bilious  attack  and  that  I  should 
not  trouble  her.  I  remember  that  because  her  annuity  was  due  and  I 
wanted  to  pay  it  to  her.  On  Saturday,  2nd  September,  she  sent  a 
message  down  by  my  wife  that  she  thought  she  could  manage  to  sign 
for  her  annuity.  About  noon  I  paid  her  £10  in  gold,  as  I  always  did — 
£9  in  sovereigns  and  £1  in  half-sovereigns,  and  she  signed  the  two 
receipts  for  it.  Although  one  is  dated  17th  August  it  was  in  fact  signed 
on  2nd  September.  I  cannot  say  whether  she  got  better  or  worse  after 
that.  On  4th  September  I  went  up  to  remonstrate  with  her  for  leaving 
her  bedroom  and  going  into  the  back  room.  At  that  time  the  boy  had 
left  his  own  room  and  had  started  to  sleep  with  her.  On  that  day, 
2nd  September,  my  daughter  Margaret  was  sent  to  fetch  Dr.  Paul,  but 
as  he  could  not  come,  I  suggested  sending  for  Dr.  Sworn,  who  had  been 
our  family  doctor  for  ten  years.  Dr.  Sworn  called  about  eleven  o'clock. 
When  I  went  into  Miss  Barrow's  room  on  4th  September  there  was  a  lot 
of  flies  in  the  room.  My  wife  told  me  that  Miss  Barrow  had  seriously 
complained  about  the  flies,  and  that  that  was  why  she  had  left  the 
room ;  she  said  the  room  was  too  hot  and  the  flies  annoyed  her,  and  she 
had  the  boy  constantly  fanning  her. 

Do  you  know  whether  your  wife  got  any  fly-papers  on  that  date? — 
She  told  me  she  did. 

From  first  to  last  did  you  ever  handle  a  fly-paper  that  came  into 
the  house? — Absolutely  no.  The  first  time  I  heard  of  Mather's  fly-papers 
was  at  the  Police  Court.  On  the  night  of  llth  September  when  the  will 
was  signed  I  saw  a  couple  of  fly-papers  upon  the  chest  of  drawers,  next 
to  a  mirror,  and  a  couple  in  saucers  on  the  mantelpiece.  These  four 
fly-papers  were  papers  that  you  put  some  water  on  ;  I  could  not  say  whether 
they  were  Mather's  or  not.  I  did  not  know  that  they  contained  arsenic ; 
1  merely  knew  that  the  flies  drank  it  and  died. 

Have  you  ever  in  your  life  boiled  down  a  fly-paper  and  made  a 
concoction  of  fly-paper? — Never. 

Or  have  you  ever  made  a  concoction  of  fly-paper  without  boiling? — 
I  have  never  known  anybody  to  do  it  until  I  heard  in  this  Court  that  it- 
158 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

had  been  done  by  experiment.  Dr.  Sworn  continued  to  call  every  day 
except  on  Sunday,  the  10th. 

On  llth  September  my  wife  told  me  that  Miss  Barrow  was  worrying 
again  about  the  furniture  and  the  jewellery  in  the  room  for  the  boy 
Ernest  and  Hilda  Grant.  I  said,  "  Why  did  she  not  do  what  I  told  her 
— have  a  solicitor,"  and  my  wife  said,  "  She  wants  to  see  you  about  it." 
About  three  or  four  or  five  in  the  afternoon  I  went  up  to  Miss  Barrow 
and  asked  what  she  wanted.  She  said,  "  I  do  not  feel  well,  and  I  would 
like  to  see  if  anything  happened  to  me  that  Ernest  and  Hilda  got  what 
belonged  to  their  father  and  mother."  She  said  there  was  some  jewellery 
that  had  belonged  to  her  parents,  and  there  was  a  watch  and  chain  that 
had  belonged  to  the  boy's  father.  I  said,  "  Don't  you  think  then  I 
had  better  call  in  a  solicitor  and  have  a  proper  will  made  out?  "  She 
replied,  "  No,  you  can  do  it  for  me,"  and  I  agreed  to  do  so.  I  was 
very  busy  at  the  time  with  my  own  business,  and  my  sister  and  her 
daughter  had  only  just  arrived  from  Wolverhampton.  I  drafted  a  will 
up  hurriedly  between  five  and  six  in  the  evening,  including  what  she  had 
mentioned,  and  between  six  and  seven  I  asked  my  father  and  wife  to  come 
up  and  witness  her  signature  to  it.  I  told  her  I  had  drafted  a  will  out, 
and  that  I  would  read  it  to  her.  I  read  it  to  her  and  asked  her  if  it  would 
do,  and  then  she  asked  for  her  glasses  to  read  it  herself.  I  turned  to 
my  wife  and  said,  "Where  is  her  glasses?"  She  said  to  my  father, 
"  There  they  are  on  the  mantelpiece,  pass  them."  They  were  passed 
over  to  her,  and  she  read  the  will  over  herself.  She  asked  me  where  she 
should  sign  it.  I  had  brought  up  her  blotting  pad  for  the  will  to  rest 
on.  I  propped  her  back  up  with  pillows,  and  she  signed  it  somewhat 
half -reclining.  I  then  took  the  blotting  pad  and  the  will  and  put  it  on 
the  side  table  at  the  side  of  the  bed  and  showed  my  wife  where  to  sign. 
My  father  was  standing  at  the  foot  of  the  bed,  and  I  showed  him  where 
to  sign.  I  explained  to  Miss  Barrow  that  they  were  to  witness  it  and  it 
was  all  right  now,  and  she  said,  "  Thank  you.  Thank  God,  that  will 
do."  When  I  prepared  that  will  I  had  no  idea  that  it  would  ever  be 
acted  upon  as  a  will.  It  was  my  intention  to  take  it  to  Mr.  Keeble, 
explain  the  circumstances  to  him,  and  get  him  to  draft  one  up  in  a  proper 
legal  form  and  bring  it  up  for  her  signature. 

Did  you  know  when  you  drafted  that  will  that  it  did  not  carry  any 
money  with  it? — I  never  gave  it  a  thought.  I  had  never  drafted  wills 
up  before.  When  my  wife  told  me  about  the  will  that  Miss  Barrow 
wanted  making,  or  that  she  wanted  to  see  me  about  the  property,  she 
had  explained  that  she  would  not  take  the  medicine  that  the  doctor  had 
given  her — this  chalk  mixture  as  I  have  heard  in  the  evidence — and  the 
doctor  had  given  her  some  effervescing  mixture,  and  it  had  to  be  drunk 
during  effervescence,  but  Miss  Barrow  would  not  take  it  while  it  was 
fizzing.  I  asked  Miss  Barrow,  "  Are  you  not  aware  that  your  mixture 
is  no  good  to  you  without  you  drink  it  during  effervescence  ? ' '  and  to 
emphasise  it  I  said,  "  You  must  drink  it  while  it  fizzes."  I  asked  my 
wife  to  give  me  a  dose  and  see  if  I  could  not  get  her  to  take  it  during 
effervescence.  I  was  not  aware  till  then  how  it  was  mixed.  My  wife 
got  me  to  hold  one  in  each  hand  and  she  poured  some  out  of  both  bottles 
into  the  separate  glasses.  She  said,  "  When  you  put  the  two  together 

159 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

it  fizzes,  and  it  has  got  to  be  drunk  quick."  I  said,  "  All  right,  I  will 
practice  on  myself,"  and  I  put  the  two  mixtures  together  and  drank 
it.  I  told  Miss  Barrow  that  that  was  how  she  had  to  drink  it,  and  I 
prepared  it  again  and  passed  it  to  her,  but  she  did  not  drink  it  during 
the  effervescence.  I  said,  "  That  is  not  a  bit  of  good,"  and  I  told  my 
wife  she  ought  to  tell  the  doctor  about  it.  I  told  her  that  she  ought 
to  go  to  the  hospital. 

Did  you  ever  on  any  other  occasion  during  Miss  Barrow's  last  illness 
give  her  anything  to  drink  or  to  eat? — The  night  she  was  very  ill,  the 
last  night,  I  gave  her  a  drop  of  brandy.  A  day  or  two  before  the  will 
was  executed  I  had  a  letter  from  my  sister,  Mrs.  Longley,  asking  if 
she  might  come  up  to  stay  with  me,  and  I  wrote  back  saying  that  I  had 
got  an  old  lady  ill  in  the  house,  but  if  she  liked  to  come  up  and  take 
pot  luck  she  could  come.  She  arrived  between  three  and  four  o'clock 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  llth,  and  we  gave  up  our  best  bedroom  to  her,  the 
room  that  my  wife  and  I  had  hitherto  occupied.  We  went  into  the 
first  floor  back  room,  where  the  boys  had  formerly  slept,  and  we  put 
up  a  large  extra  bed  for  my  father  and  the  boys  in  the  back  room,  next 
to  Miss  Barrow's  room,  a  room  that  was  really  one  of  Miss  Barrow's 
rooms,  but  she  had  never  occupied  it  since  the  Hooks  left.  The  servant, 
Chater,  remained  in  the  room  she  always  occupied  with  my  daughter 
and  my  little  girl,  Ada.  The  night  that  Mrs.  Longley  arrived  we  all 
went  to  the  Finsbury  Park  Empire  except  Maggie,  who  had  to  stop  in  to 
look  after  Miss  Barrow.  We  got  back  about  midnight.  My  father 
and  Mrs.  Longley  and  Miss  Longley  went  out  somewhere  every  day. 

At  9.30  in  the  morning  of  the  13th  the  Longleys,  my  father , 
Frederick,  and  Ada  went  for  the  day  to  the  White  City.  I  believe  I 
was  in  bed  when  Dr.  Sworn  called  that  morning  between  ten  and  eleven. 
I  was  not  very  well.  I  went  out  about  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  I 
think,  and  then  I  came  back  for  a  bit  of  tea  about  half -past  six  or  seven. 
I  went  up  to  the  Marlborough  Theatre  between  7.30  and  7.45.  Just 
to  fix  it,  in  case  any  question  arises  about  it,  I  had  a  small  dispute  at  the 
Marlborough  Theatre  about  a  two-shilling  piece  and  a  half-crown  piece 
that  night.  When  I  returned  home  about  12.30  midnight,  I  heard 
from  my  wife  that  Miss  Barrow  had  called  out  she  was  dying,  "  I  am 
dying,"  or  something  like  that.  I  said,  "Is  she?"  and  she  said, 
"  No,"  and  smiled.  Dr.  Sworn  lives  about  twenty-five  minutes  from 
us ;  I  could  do  it  in  about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes,  but  I  am  a  quick 
walker.  I  had  been  in  the  house  about  half  an  hour  when  Ernie  called 
out  from  upstairs,  "  Mrs.  Seddon,  Chickie  wants  you."  My  wife  said 
that  she  had  been  calling  like  that,  and  that  she  had  done  all  she  could 
for  her,  and  put  hot  flannel  on  her.  She  had  been  up  several  nights 
that  week  till  the  early  hours  of  the  morning  with  her.  I  might  mention 
this  was  nothing  unusual  during  that  period  for  the  boy  to  call  out, 
"  Mrs.  Seddon,  Chickie  wants  you,"  in  the  early  hours  of  the  morning. 
My  wife  wus  resting  on  the  couch,  and  I  said  to  her,  "  Never  mind,  I 
will  go  and  see  what  she  wants,"  and  she  said,  "  Never  mind,  I  will  go." 
I  said  I  would  go,  and  I  asked  my  sister  to  come  up  with  me.  We  both 
went  up  together,  and  my  wife  immediately  followed  us,  so  we  three  were 
160 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

in  the  room  together.  I  said,  "  Now,  Miss  Barrow,  this  is  a  sister  of 
mine  that  is  down  from  Wolverhampton.  You  know  Mrs.  Seddon  is 
tired  out,  and  I  would  like  you  to  try  and  let  her  have  a  little  sleep. 
You  know  it  would  do  you  more  good  to  rest."  She  said,  "  Oh,  but  I 
have  had  such  pains."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  Mrs.  Seddon  says  she  has  put 
hot  flannels  on  you  and  done  all  she  can  for  you."  She  did  not  take 
any  interest  in  my  sister,  and  my  sister  left  the  room.  She  asked  for 
more  hot  flannels  and  she  asked  for  a  drop  of  brandy.  I  said,  "  My 
dear  woman,  do  you  not  know  that  it  is  after  one  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing? We  cannot  get  brandy  now."  My  wife  said,  "  There  is  a  drop 
there  in  the  bottle,"  So  I  said,  "  Oh  well,  give  her  a  drop  then."  My 
wife  passed  me  the  bottle  and  I  gave  her  the  brandy.  There  was  very 
little  altogether;  I  only  gave  her  half  of  what  there  was,  and  left  the 
other  drop  in  the  bottle.  I  think  there  was  a  soda-water  syphon  there, 
and  I  put  a  drop  of  soda  in  the  brandy. 

Had  you  the  slightest  suspicion  at  that  time  that  Miss  Barrow  was 
fatally  or  dangerously  ill? — No;  you  see,  every  night  had  been  alike, 
sending  down  and  calling  out,  and  my  wife  having  to  go  up  and  down, 
up  and  down,  all  the  time  giving  her  hot  flannels.  My  wife  had  been 
up  and  down  nearly  every  night  that  week.  After  I  gave  Miss  Barrow 
the  brandy,  I  left  my  wife  preparing  hot  flannels  and  I  went  down. 

How  long  were  you  altogether  in  Miss  Barrow's  room  at  this  time? — 
Not  many  minutes,  a  few  minutes — four  or  five  minutes.  My  sister 
had  just  got  to  the  bottom  of  the  stairs  and  she  waited  there  for  me, 
and  I  had  a  conversation  with  her.  There  was  a  shocking  smell  in  Miss 
Barrow's  room  that  night;  I  could  not  bear  to  be  in  the  room,  as  I  have 
a  delicate  stomach.  Mrs.  Longley  had  said  that  it  was  not  proper  for 
the  boy  to  sleep  there,  and  I  said,  "If  we  don't  allow  that  we  would 
get  no  sleep  at  all,"  meaning  that  Miss  Barrow  would  not  sleep  unless 
he  did  sleep  with  her ;  she  wanted  either  my  wife  or  the  boy  with  her.  I 
went  to  bed  about  2.30,  and  in  a  few  minutes  the  boy  called  Mrs.  Seddon 
again,  and  she  went  up  without  me.  I  said,  "  It  looks  as  if  she  was 
going  to  have  you  up  all  night."  My  wife  was  called  up  twice  within 
the  space  of  half  an  hour,  and  then  the  third  time  she  was  called  I  went 
up  with  her  to  see  if  I  could  try  to  get  Miss  Barrow  off  to  sleep,  and 
explained  to  her  that  if  she  was  going  to  have  Mrs.  Seddon  up  all  night 
she  would  not  have  any  one  to  attend  to  her  or  wait  on  her  to-morrow. 
I  said,  "  You  know  really  we  shall  have  to  get  a  nurse,  or  you  will  have 
to  go  to  hospital,"  and  she  said  she  could  not  help  it.  The  boy  Ernie 
said  he  was  tired  and  could  not  get  any  sleep.  I  asked  my  wife  what 
she  was  going  to  do,  and  she  said,  "I  will  sit  up  with  her."  I  said, 
"  Well,  you  had  better  go  to  your  own  bed,  Ernie,  and  get  a  sleep." 
Miss  Barrow  closed  her  eyes,  and  we  thought  she  was  going  to  sleep. 
As  my  wife  began  to  leave  the  room  she  opened  her  eyes  and  asked  for 
Ernie;  she  did  not  like  to  ask  my  wife  to  stay  with  her.  I  told  Ernie 
to  get  back  to  her  bed  again,  and  he  did  so.  Later  on  I  sent  him  to  his 
own  bed.  Each  time  my  wife  went  up  that  night  she  made  hot  flannels 
for  Miss  Barrow,  getting  the  hot  water  from  Miss  Barrow's  kitchen, 
where  there  was  a  gas  stove.  We  went  downstairs  again,  and  in  about 

L  161 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

a  quarter  of  an  hour  the  boy  shouted  "  Chickie  is  out  of  bed."  We 
both  rushed  up  and  found  her  sitting  on  the  floor  at  the  foot  of  the  bed 
in  an  upright  position,  and  the  boy  was  holding  her  up.  1  said,  "  What- 
ever are  you  doing  out  of  bed?"  and  we  lifted  her  up  into  bed.  The 
boy  looked  terribly  upset  and  worried. 

Was  Miss  Barrow  in  pain? — No;  she  lay  quiet.  She  did  not  suggest 
that  there  were  any  pains.  I  asked  her  what  she  was  doing  out  of  bed, 
but  she  did  not  say.  She  seemed  to  know  what  she  was  doing,  but  she 
ga-^3  no  explanation.  We  got  her  into  bed.  I  said  to  my  wife  that 
she  had  better  stay  with  her,  and  she  agreed  to  do  so,  and  then  I  told 
the  boy  Ernie  to  get  into  his  own  bed — this  was  between  three  and  four 
o'clock  in  the  morning — and  I  said,  "  You  need  not  go  to  school  in  the 
morning,  as  you  have  been  up  pretty  well  all  the  night."  My  wife  told 
me  to  go  to  bed,  but  I  said,  "  Never  mind,  I  will  put  a  pipe  on  and  keep 
you  company."  I  did  not  go  to  bed;  I  kept  going  up  and  down  to  s^e 
Low  the  baby  was,  and  I  also  stood  at  the  door  smoking  my  pipe.  My 
wife  sat  in  the  easy  chair  by  the  bedside,  and  Miss  Barrow  went  into  a 
sleep.  I  said,  "  She  seems  to  have  gone  into  a  nice  sleep,"  and  my 
wife  said,  "  What's  the  good  of  going  to  bed,  getting  undressed,  and 
being  called  and  having  to  get  up  again?  " 

About  6  o'clock  what  happened? — We  decided  absolutely  that  she 
should  go  to  the  hospital  the  next  day,  so  I  said  to  the  wife,  "  You  can 
stop  up  with  her,  and  you  will  be  able  to  go  to  bed  to-morrow,  because 
when  Dr.  Sworn  comes  I  am  going  to  tell  him  to  see  she  goes  away  to  the 
hospital."  She  was  snoring  during  the  hour  or  hour  and  a  half  after 
that — a  kind  of  breathing  through  her  mouth  like  that  (showing).  I 
was  smoking  and  reading,  and  my  wife  was  dozing,  when  this  snoring  did 
not  seem  quite  so  heavy,  and  all  of  a  sudden  it  stopped.  I  said,  "  Good 
God,  she  has  stopped  breathing." 

She  died  quite  peacefully  and  quietly  so  far  as  her  death  is  con- 
cerned?— Yes,  she  died  about  6.15  or  6.20  by  her  clock.  I  hurried  off 
for  Dr.  Sworn ;  I  was  in  a  terrible  state.  He  gave  me  a  certificate ; 
I  did  not  expect  it  then.  I  got  back  about  8  o'clock  I  think,  and  I  found 
the  charwoman,  Mrs.  Rutt,  and  my  wife  either  in  Miss  Barrow's  room 
or  in  the  dining-room,  I  am  not  sure  which.  Mrs.  Rutt  laid  the  body 
out.  I  helped  to  lift  the  body  while  the  feather  bed  was  being  taken 
from  under  her.  I  asked  my  wife  if  she  knew  where  the  keys  were,  and 
she  handed  me  a  bunch  of  keys,  with  one  of  which  I  opened  the  trunk. 
In  the  top  of  the  trunk  I  found  the  cash-box,  and  I  put  it  on  the  bed  and 
opened  it  with  another  of  the  keys  in  the  presence  of  my  wife  and  Mrs. 
Rutt.  In  it  I  found  four  sovereigns  and  a  half-sovereign.  Towards 
the  afternoon  I  said  there  ought  to  be  some  more  money  than  this,  and 
we  started  to  search  the  room.  We  had  already  turned  the  trunk  right  out 
in  the  presence  of  Mrs.  Rutt.  I  felt  there  ought  to  be  more  money, 
because  I  had  paid  Miss  Barrow  £10  on  2nd  September,  and  she  had 
never  been  out  of  the  room  to  my  knowledge.  In  the  same  drawer  as 
my  wife  said  she  had  found  the  keys,  I  found  three  sovereigns  wrapped 
up  in  separate  pieces  of  tissue  paper.  I  said  to  my  wife,  "  Let  us  have 
a  look  at  that  handbag,"  and  in  the  close-fitting  pocket  at  the  side  of 
the  bag  we  found  two  sovereigns  and  a  half-sovereign.  In  a  loose  bag  that 
162 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

was  hanging  at  the  foot  of  the  bed  we  found  a  few  coppers.  These  were 
placed  with  5d.  that  Ernie  had  got  in  the  money  box,  making  8d.,  and 
I  gave  him  a  shilling  out  of  my  own  pocket  for  pocket  money  to  go  to 
Southend-on-Sea. 

Ernie,  Frederick,  and  Ada  went  to  Southend  and  stayed  with  Mrs. 
Henderson.       I  thought  I  would  not  tell  Ernie  of  Miss  Barrow's  death  till 
he  had  recovered  a  little  bit  from  the  shock.        I  thought  it  would  be 
better  to  tell  him  after  he  had  had  a  little  holiday ;  I  had  to  consider  the 
boy's  feelings.       At  11.30  I  went  to  see  Mr.  Nodes,  the  undertaker.     At 
that  time  I  had  only  £4  10s. ;  we  had  not  yet  made  a  thorough  search. 
The  account  given  by  Mr.   Nodes  of  what  occurred  is  practically  correct, 
but  I  think  there  is  a  lot  that  he  has  forgotten.       For  instance,  I  did  not 
say  "  old  girl  "  ;    I  said  that  an  old  lady  had  died  in  the  house,   and  I 
wanted   to   arrange   about  the  funeral.        He   asked   me  what  kind   of  a 
funeral  I  wanted,  and  I  said,  ' '  Well,  I  am  rather  surprised ;  I  have  only 
found  £4  10s.   in  her  cash  box,  and  there  are  the  doctor's   fees  to  be 
paid."       "Well,"  he  said,  "look  here,  old  man,  I  can  give  you  a  very 
nice  turnout  for  £4,"  and  he  explained  the  kind  of  funeral,  a  composite 
carriage.       He  asked  me  who  was  going  to  the  funeral,  and  I  said,  "  Well, 
I  do  not  know  yet;  I  am  going  to  drop  a  line  to  the  relatives.       Though 
they  have  never  been  near  her  during  the  time  she  has  lived  in  the  house, 
and  they  parted  very  bad  friends,   I  don't  know  whether  they  will  come 
to  the  funeral  or  not.       If  they  don't  turn  up  there  will  only  be  me  and 
the  wife   and   my  father   to  go."        "  Well,"   he  said,    "  you   can  have 
a  composite  carriage,"  which  he  explained  would  hold  three  or  four  com- 
fortably, and  would  carry  the  coffin  under  a  pall  under  the  seat.       I  said, 
"I     do     not     want     the     coffin     exhibited     like     that."        He     said, 
"It  is  not  seen ;  it  is  covered  with  a  pall,  and  I  can  assure  you  it  is  quite 
a  respectable  turnout."       I  said,  "  Where  do  you  bury?  "  and  he  said  "  At 
Finchley."       I  said,   "It  will  be  all  right  at  £4?"  and  he  said,    "Oh, 
yes — quite  an  ordinary  funeral."        I  asked,   "  It  can  easily  be  altered, 
then,  if  the  relatives  turn  up?"   and  he  said,    "Oh,   yes,  it  will  make 
no  difference,"   meaning  the  arrangement  could  be  altered  or  carriages 
added,   or   anything  like  that   that  was   required.        So  he   said,    "  just 
pop  in  the  trap  and  I  will  come  round  and  measure  the  body."       I  have 
known  Mr.  Nodes  for  over  ten  years,  and  I  gave  all  my  agents  his  business 
card  to  try  and  introduce  business   to  him.        Apart  from  his   business 
as   undertaker,  I   have  met  and  chatted  to  him,    but  I   have   not  made 
a  personal  friend  of  him.       He  drove  me  up  to  my  house,  and  went  in  to 
measure  the  body.       Miss  Barrow  had  told  me  that  there  was  a  family 
vault,  but  when  her  mother  was  buried  it  was  full  up.       She  told  me  that 
it  was  in  her  mother's  name.       I  forgot  to  mention  that  Mr.   Nodes  ex- 
plained what  kind  of  coffin  it  would  be;   what  he  explained  to  me  was 
satisfactory.        On   the  way  to   Tollington   Park   he   said,    "Look   here, 
Seddon,  between  you  and  me — I  would  not  do  it  for  anybody  else — I  can 
do  this  funeral  I  mentioned  to  you  for  £3  7s.  6d.,  but,  of  course,  I  will 
give  you  a  receipt  for  £4."       I  said,  "  A  little  bit  of  commission  like?  " 
When  we  got  to  the  house  we  went  up  to  the  room  where  the  body  was. 
There  was  a  very  bad  smell  there,  so  much  so  that  I  had  to  leave  the 
room.       Mr.  Nodes  suggested  that  the  body  should  go  to  the  mortuary, 

163 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

and  he  also  suggested  that  the  burial  should  be  on  the  Saturday,  but  I 
could  not  decide  at  once.  That  would  be  about  a  quarter  to  12.  I 
don't  think  I  had  any  regular  dinner  that  day  as  I  had  been  too  much 
upset.  I  think  I  might  have  a  cup  of  tea  or  something  like  that  in  the 
middle  of  the  day.  About  1  o'clock  Taylor  arrived,  and  then  Smith — • 
I  could  not  say  whether  they  came  together  or  not,  but  anyhow  I  joined 
them  both  in  the  office.  I  telephoned  to  Nodes  that  afternoon,  but  I 
don't  remember  exactly  when.  I  had  a  talk  with  my  wife  and  father 
about  Saturday  being  a  satisfactory  day  for  the  funeral  on  account  of  the 
condition  of  the  deceased,  and  it  being  a  slack  business  day  for  me.  I 
think  I  told  Mr.  Nodes  in  the  bedroom  that  I  would  agree  to  the  body 
being  removed  when  the  coffin  came. 

I  should  say  that  it  was  between  3  and  4  o'clock  when  I  set  to  work 
with  Smith  and  Taylor  in  the  office.  I  was  waiting  about  some  details  of 
the  business,  and  I  was  complaining  that  I  was  tired  and  worn  out  and 
could  do  with  a  sleep.  Mr.  Smith  suggested  to  me,  "  Why  not  go  and 
have  a  rest?  We  can  get  on  with  the  work."  I  said,  "  Yes,  all  right, 
I  think  I  will,  but  I  will  have  to  send  a  letter  off  to  the  relatives  of  the 
deceased  and  let  them  know  she  is  dead,  as  the  funeral  is  for  Saturday, 
and  then  I  will  go  and  have  a  rest."  I  have  a  typewriter  in  my  office, 
and  I  do  my  own  typewriting.  I  had  some  mourning  paper  in  my 
pocket  in  the  office  at  the  side  of  the  safe,  and  I  got  my  typewriter  over 
from  the  corner  of  the  office  and  put  it  on  the  desk  underneath  the 
pendant,  where  I  generally  sit  when  I  use  the  typewriter.  My  position 
is  wrongly  shown  on  the  plan  that  has  been  exhibited.  (The  witness 
indicated  the  proper  position  on  the  plan.)  I  wrote  on  the  typewriter 
that  afternoon  an  intimation  to  the  relatives  that  Miss  Barrow  had  died. 
What  is  now  shown  me  is  a  carbon  copy  done  at  the  same  time  as  the 
original.  I  had  only  two  sheets  of  black-edged  paper;  one  went  to  the 
Vonderahe's,  and  what  is  shown  me  is  the  other  sheet.  I  addressed  the 
letter  to  "Frank  E.  Vonderahe,  31  Evershot  Road,  Finsbury  Park,  N." 
I  got  that  from  the  address  Miss  Barrow  had  given  me  on  27th  March. 
After  I  had  written  the  letter  I  put  it  in  an  envelope.  I  stood  up  and 
put  it  out  of  my  way  on  Smith's  desk,  and  then  I  carried  the  typewriter 
back  to  the  position  I  got  it  from.  I  called  my  daughter  Maggie  in  and 
said,  "  Take  this  letter  and  post  it,  and  see  you  catch  the  5  o'clock 
post;  I  want  them  to  get  it  to-night."  Smith,  who  was  in  the  room  all 
the  time,  said  that  I  looked  bad,  and  he  had  been  bad  himself,  and  he 
wanted  to  know  could  he  go  out  and  get  a  drop  of  brandy,  and  I  said, 
"  Certainly,"  and  he  followed  Maggie  out. 

Later  on,  when  this  matter  appeared  in  the  papers,  Smith  came  of 
his  own  accord  and  saw  me,  and  said  he  had  seen  the  case  about  the 
inquest  in  the  paper.  I  asked  him  did  he  recollect  that  on  that  day  Miss 
Barrow  died,  and  I  had  mentioned  I  had  been  up  all  night,  and  he  sug- 
gested to  me  going  and  having  a  rest,  that  they  could  get  on  with  the 
business,  and  I  said,  "  Yes,  but  I  must  first  write  a  letter  to  the 
relatives?"  He  said,  "Yes,  I  do,  Mr.  Seddon,  perfectly  well.  You 
wrote  it  on  mourning  paper  and  put  it  on  my  desk  in  the  envelope."  I 
said,  "  Did  you  notice  that?  "  and  he  said  "  Yes."  I  said,  "  That  is 
^rood,"  and  he  said,  "Yes,  and  I  seen  Maggie  post  the  letter,  and  I 
164 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

patted  her  on  the  shoulder  as  I  passed  her,  and  said  '  Good  afternoon.'  ' 
He  said  it  was  quite  clear  to  him.  My  wife  and  Maggie  were  present 
when  he  said  this.  I  think  my  father  was  also  present,  but  I  am  not 
sure,  nor  do  I  know  whether  there  was  not  one  of  my  sons  present.  I 
then  said,  "  Do  you  think  that  Taylor  would  be  able  to  remember  the 
incident?  "  He  said,  "  I  don't  know,  but  I  will  refresh  his  memory,  as 
you  have  refreshed  mine,  and  perhaps  he  will."  He  said  he  was  quite 
willing  to  come  forward  and  give  evidence.  I  instructed  Mr.  Saint,  my 
solicitor,  to  secure  his  attendance  as  a  witness  at  the  Coroner's  Court  if 
necessary.  I  don't  think  Mr.  Saint  called  him ;  I  don't  know.  Mr. 
Nodes  took  away  the  body  from  my  house  in  the  evening.  I  got  a  lock 
of  the  hair  for  the  two  children,  Ernie  and  Hilda. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


Sixth  Day— Saturday,  pth  March,   1912. 

The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

FREDERICK  HENRY  SEDDON  (prisoner),  recalled,  further  examined  by 
Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — In  the  early  days  of  Miss  Barrow's  residence  at 
Tollington  Park  she  took  the  boy  to  school  every  morning,  and  met  him 
again  at  noon,  brought  him  home  to  dinner,  took  him  back  to  school,  and 
went  out  in  the  afternoon.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  what  she  did  with 
her  time  or  where  she  went  during  these  months.  She  used  to  go  out  in 
the  evening  with  the  boy.  So  far  as  I  could  see  she  was  not  healthy  and 
strong.  From  my  observations  as  a  superintendent  of  insurance  regard- 
ing good  and  bad  lives,  she  was  not  a  life  that  I  could  recommend  for 
insurance.  She  was  able  to  walk  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  but  her 
complexion  was  very  sallow. 

On  14th  September  I  went  back  to  the  office  somewhere  between 
five  and  six  o'clock,  after  I  had  been  lying  down,  and  I  found  Smith 
and  Taylor  there.  On  this  occasion  they  had  been  taking  the  collectors' 
money.  I  always  counted  the  money  up  into  bags  and  put  it  into  my 
safe,  and  then,  when  I  went  to  bed,  I  took  it  upstairs  with  me  and  put 
it  into  my  bedroom  safe.  I  never  left  any  money  in  the  office  on  the 
Thursday  nights.  On  the  Friday  afternoon  I  paid  the  money  into  my 
bank.  On  the  occasion  in  question  the  collections  were  over  £80  for 
the  week,  and  after  all  the  expenses  had  been  paid  I  think  I  had  to  pay 
into  the  bank  on  behalf  of  the  company  something  like  £57.  On  this 
night  the  silver  was  in  three  bags  and  the  gold  in  one  bag.  There  was 
over  £60  of  gold  in  the  bag,  that  being  made  up  of  £29  of  the  company's 
money  and  £35  that  I  was  adding  to  my  own  current  account.  That  £35 
came  out  of  the  sum  of  £80  of  my  own  that  I  had  on  hand  in  the 
office  safe.  I  still  had  the  £100  in  my  safe  upstairs.  The  £100 
downstairs  had  been  reduced  to  £80  in  this  way.  On  several  occasions 
Miss  Barrow  had  given  me  £5  in  payment  for  rent,  and  I  had  taken  £5 

165 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

in  gold  out  of  the  bedroom  safe  to  cash  the  note  and  I  replaced  the  same 
by  the  note.  This  had  been  done  to  the  tune  of  about  £25  between 
October  and  January,  so  that  there  would  be  £75  in  gold  in  the  bedroom 
safe  and  £25  in  notes.  By  January  I  had  reduced  my  current  account 
by  the  £34  that  I  had  paid  to  Russell  &  Sons,  solicitors.  I  took  these 
£25  notes  to  the  bank  on  30th  January  to  make  up  my  balance.  I 
subsequently  reduced  the  amount  in  the  office  by  £20,  leaving  £80  there, 
and  with  £5  that  I  had  loose  I  brought  up  the  amount  I  had  in  the 
bedroom  safe  to  the  original  amount  in  gold  to  £100.  On  one  occasion 
in  October,  1910,  Miss  Barrow  gave  me  a  £5  note  and  £4  8s.  in  cash 
to  pay  the  ground  rent  of  the  Buck's  Head,  and  I  sent  a  cheque  through 
my  own  bank.  (Shown  pass-book) — I  find  there,  on  13th  October,  1910, 
a  debit  to  my  account,  "  Cholmley  <fe  Co.,  £8  4s.  4d."  That  was  the 
first  time  I  had  ever  sent  the  ground  rent  to  Cholmley  &  Co.  As  far  as 
I  recollect  that  is  the  only  time  on  which  a  bank  note  came  into  my 
possession  from  Miss  Barrow. 

To  come  back  to  the  14th  September,  and  the  showing  of  gold  and 
the  offering  of  the  bag  to  Mr.  Smith — it  was  my  practice  to  count  up  the 
whole  of  the  office  money.  This  evening  I  had  the  cash  to  count,  and 
I  counted  £15  7s.  6d.  in  silver  and  £29  in  gold  of  the  company's  money. 
I  took  the  £80  out  of  the  safe  for  the  purpose  of  counting  out  £35 
from  it  to  add  to  my  account,  and  consequently  I  would  have,  with  the 
£29  in  gold  of  the  company's  money,  £109  in  gold  altogether,  and  the 
three  bags  of  silver  containing  £15.  I  returned  the  £45  balance  to 
my  safe.  Taylor  has  said  that  I  had  the  money  on  my  arm — three 
bags — and  another  in  my  hand.  That  is  absolutely  false.  I  put  the  four 
bags  in  the  slide  till  and  passed  them  into  my  safe.  Smith  has  said 
that  I  showed  him  a  bag  holding  between  fifty  and  sixty  sovereigns — 
that  would  be  about  accurate.  Taylor  and  Smith  left  the  office  about 
midnight. 

On  Friday,  the  15th,  I  went  to  Mr.  Wright,  the  jeweller,  and  also 
to  the  bank,  where  I  paid  £88  4s.  8d.  into  the  credit  of  my  current 
account,  and  also  a  sum  of  £7  16s.  lOd.  This  was  made  up  of  £64  in 
gold,  being  £29  of  the  company's  money  and  £35  of  mine,  and  £15 
17s.  6d.  in  silver,  30s.  in  copper  in  blue  5s.  bags,  and  £6  17s.  2d.  in 
cheques  and  postal  orders.  I  also  paid  in  £7  16s.  into  a  separate 
account  that  I  kept  for  the  rents  of  the  Coutts  Road  property,  which  were 
the  proceeds  of  the  India  stock.  On  that  same  day  my  current  account 
is  debited  with  £100,  which  was  the  transfer  of  the  profits  on  the  Coutts 
Road  property  for  the  half  year.  From  March  to  September  I  had 
made  £100  on  the  Coutts  Road  property  after  paying  all  expenses.  That 
is  a  leasehold  property  consisting  of  fourteen  houses  yielding  £8  a  week 
rent.  The  deposit  account  credit  was  thus  brought  up  to  £200.  Out 
of  the  £45  that  was  in  gold  in  the  downstairs  safe  I  put  £30  into  the 
Post  Office  Savings  Bank  on  15th  September.  On  the  afternoon  of  that 
day  the  Longleys  returned  to  Wolverhampton. 

On  the  Saturday  the  funeral  took  place,  and  my  wife,  my  father, 
and  I  attended.  It  started  from  Stroud  Green  Road. 


in  the 
166 


On  Monday,  18th  September,  I  applied  for  and  obtained  three  shares 
te  National  Freehold  Land  and  Building  Society  of  £30,  and  I  paid 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

for  these  in  gold  which  I  took  from  my  bedroom  safe.  I  went  to  put 
the  £100  that  I  had  in  my  safe  in  the  Building  Society,  but  I  found  I 
could  only  purchase  £30  shares,  and  so  I  bought  three  for  £90,  and 
brought  £10  home  again,  which  was  put  in  the  upstairs  safe. 
I  had  £15  in  gold  in  the  downstairs  safe.  (Being  referred 
to  the  annuity  receipts) — These  receipts  add  up  to  £91,  being 
nine  for  £10  plus  the  extra  £1  on  the  first  payment.  That  £91 
was  paid  to  Miss  Barrow  in  gold.  On  occasions  I  wrote  the  cheque 
payable  to  "  Self,"  drew  the  £10,  and  paid  it  to  her,  to  save  breaking 
into  the  money  I  had.  To  bear  out  this  statement,  I  read  from  my 
counterfoil  cheque-book  four  items  dated  31st  January,  1st  March,  31st 
March,  and  31st  July,  marked  "  F.  H.  S.,  £10."  All  these  cheques 
were  applied  towards  the  payment  of  those  £10.  In  two  cases  the 
counterfoils  are  marked  "  E.  M.  B.,  £10."  As  to  the  other  five 
payments,  I  withheld  £10  from  the  company's  money  I  had  to  pay,  and 
debited  my  own  account  with  the  sums. 

On  Wednesday,  the  20th,  at  nine  o'clock  at  night,  Mr.  Vonderahe 
and  his  wife  called,  but  I  was  out  with  my  wife  and  did  not  come  in  till 
midnight.  They  left  a  message  that  they  were  coming  next  day,  and 
1  stayed  in  to  see  them.  On  the  21st,  about  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
I  was  informed  by  my  daughter  that  the  Vonderahes  had  come,  so  of 
course  I  went  in  knowing  I  was  going  to  see  them.  My  daughter  had 
left  a  message  on  the  table  when  we  came  in  at  night  to  say  that  the 
relatives  of  Miss  Barrow  had  been  wanting  to  see  us,  and  that  they 
would  be  back  in  the  morning.  I  said,  "  Are  you  Mrs.  Frank 
Vonderahe? "  and  the  smaller  woman  said,  "  No,  I  am  Mrs.  Frank 
Vonderahe."  I  said,  "  How  is  it  you  did  not  answer  my  letter  and 
come  to  the  funeral?  "  She  went  quite  flushed  and  seemed  quite  excited, 
and  she  said,  "We  never  got  no  letter."  So  I  pulled  out  of  my  pocket 
the  copy  of  the  letter.  She  read  it,  and  then  she  said,  "  We  never  received 
a  letter."  I  asked  where  they  lived,  and  she  said  Corbyn  Street. 
"Well,"  I  says,  "The  letter  was  addressed  to  31  Evershot  Road.  You 
had  better  make  inquiries  at  the  Post  Office  about  it."  She  said  she 
had  heard  that  Miss  Barrow  was  dead  and  they  had  come  to  interview 
me  respecting  it.  Later  she  asked  me  about  the  investments,  and  I 
said  that  Miss  Barrow  had  disposed  of  all  her  investments  to  purchase 
an  annuity.  I  gave  her  a  statement  and  said,  "  Here  is  a  full  statement 
of  it.  Give  this  to  your  husband."  I  also  gave  her  a  copy  of  the  will 
and  three  mourning  cards,  one  for  each  of  the  three  relatives.  The 
original  will  was  in  my  safe  upstairs  at  that  time.  I  told  them,  on  their 
asking,  that  she  was  buried  at  Finchley.  She  said,  "In  a  public 
grave?"  and  I  said  "Yes."  She  said,  "Fancy,  and  she  had  got  a 
family  vault,"  and  I  said,  "It  is  full  up."  She  said,  "  No,  it  is  not," 
and  I  said,  "  Oh,  well,  it  will  be  an  easy  matter  for  the  relatives  then 
to  remove  the  body."  Mrs.  Vonderahe  said  whoever  had  persuaded 
her  to  part  with  her  money  must  have  been  a  very  clever  person.  I 
eaid  she  was  anxious  to  purchase  an  annuity  as  a  friend  of  hers  had  an 
annuity,  and  that  this  friend  of  hers  had  no  worry  whatever,  whereas 
ehe  was  constantly  worrying  about  it.  So  the  two  Vonderahes  spoke 
to  one  another,  and  they  said,  "  It  would  be  that  Mrs.  Smith."  That 

167 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

is  how  I  came  to  know  of  the  existence  of  Mrs.  Smith.  We  spoke  about 
the  boy,  and  Mrs.  Vonderahe  said  that  Miss  Barrow  had  been  a  bad, 
wicked  woman  all  her  life,  and  that  it  was  good  enough  for  her — that  was 
to  be  buried  in  a  public  grave.  She  had  spoken  about  quarrels  that  had 
taken  place  between  her  and  the  boy's  mother,  and  they  had  thrown 
things  at  one  another,  and  she  said,  "  Really,  it  is  a  good  job  for  the 
boy  that  she  has  passed  away."  She  said,  "  She  even  spat  at  us  before 
she  left."  I  said,  "She  was  a  woman  that  wanted  humouring;  you 
ought  to  take  into  consideration  her  infirmities,  and  she  was  to  be  pitied." 
They  did  not  display  any  affection  whatever  for  Miss  Barrow  at  that 
interview ;  they  spoke  of  her  as  a  vindictive  woman,  a  bad-tempered 
woman.  I  said,  "  That  is  only  part  of  her  complaint,"  and  she  said, 
''  Oh,  you  don't  know  her  as  well  as  we  do."  I  said,  "  Well,  we  have 
had  her  here  for  fourteen  months  any  way."  I  never  found  her  a 
vindictive  woman ;  the  woman  was  all  right,  she  had  her  fits  of  temper, 
but  I  used  to  tell  the  wife  and  children  to  take  no  notice.  The  Vonderahes 
then  asked  what  was  to  come  of  the  boy,  and  I  said,  "  Well,  unless  the 
boy's  relatives  interfere  there  is  a  home  here  for  him."  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  did  keep  and  clothe  the  boy  until  he  was  taken  away  from  us  by 
the  police  in  December.  I  bought  him  a  new  suit,  and  my  wife  made 
him  some  new  flannel  underclothing,  which  was  shown  to  the  Vonderahes. 
They  said  they  could  see  that  he  had  got  a  good  home,  and  I  said  he 
was  quite  happy  and  contented  with  my  children.  They  also  added  that 
they  always  told  their  husbands  that  Miss  Barrow  would  never  leave 
anything  to  them,  and  they  were  not  surprised  that  she  had  left  them 
nothing.  They  asked  me  if  I  would  see  their  husbands,  and  I  said  that 
we  were  going  away  for  a  fortnight  but  I  would  gladly  see  them  on  my 
return. 

On  my  return  on  2nd  October  I  sent  Ernie  round  to  say  that  I  was 
back,  and  Mr.  Vonderahe  sent  a  message  by  the  boy  that  he  was  coming. 
About  9th  October  he  called,  along  with  some  one  who  I  assumed  to  be 
his  brother.  He  said,  however,  that  his  brother  was  ill,  and  I  said, 
"  What  did  you  want  to  bring  a  stranger  for?  This  only  concerns  the 
next-of-kin."  He  said,  "  Well,  surely  there  is  no  reason  why  you  should 
not  speak  in  the  presence  of  my  friend?  "  I  said,  "  Well,  I  don't  know. 
I  understand  you  have  got  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  a  solicitor."  He 
said,  "  My  brother  is  not  well,  and  he  could  not  come."  I  said,  "  Very 
good.  Well,  what  would  you  like  to  know,  because  I  have  placed  all 
the  information  in  the  hands  of  your  wife?  I  sent  you  a  copy  of  the 
will,  and  I  gave  you  a  statement  in  writing  as  to  what  she  had  done 
with  the  properties  and  purchased  an  annuity.  I  also  showed  your 
wife  a  letter  that  she  had  written  to  me  stating  that  you  had  treated 
her  badly  and  that  she  did  not  wish  you,  her  relations,  to  benefit.  What 
else  would  you  like  to  know?"  He  said,  "  Well,  can  I  see  the  will, 
the  original  will?  "  I  said,  "  No,  you  have  got  a  copy."  He  said, 
"  Well,  I  can  see  the  original  will,  can't  I?  "  I  said,  "  If  you  are  the 
next-of-kin  you  can."  He  said,  "  Well,  I  am,"  and  then  I  said,  "  I 
understand  that  there  is  an  elder  brother."  I  had  learned  that  from 
Miss  Barrow,  who  explained  that  this  elder  brother  and  they  were  not 
friends — he  was  the  black  sheep  of  the  family,  or  something  of  that 
168 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

kind,  and  they  did  not  know  where  he  was — he  was  missing.  Mr. 
Vonderahe  said,  "  Supposing  he  is  dead?  "  I  said,  "It  is  a  very  easy 
matter  to  get  a  copy  of  the  certificate  of  death,  and  to  go  to  a  Commis- 
sioner of  Oaths  and  swear  an  affidavit  that  you  are  the  legal  next-of-kin, 
and  I  will  go  into  details  with  you."  He  said,  "  I  don't  want  to  be 
bothered  with  solicitors,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing."  I  said,  "  You  have 
got  all  the  information  I  can  give  you;  I  put  it  down  in  writing,  and  I 
am  prepared  to  stand  by  it.  Everything  has  been  done  in  perfect 
order."  He  said,  "Who  is  the  landlord  of  the  Buck's  Head  and  the 
barber's  shop?"  I  said,  "I  am."  He  said,  "How  did  you  come  by 
it?"  and  I  replied,  "I  have  already  told  you  that.  If  you  will  prove 
to  me  that  you  are  the  legal  next-of-kin  I  will  go  into  further  details 
with  you."  Then  he  said,  "What  about  the  boy?"  and  I  said,  "The 
boy  has  a  comfortable  home  here  unless  the  relations  interfere  with  him. 
Of  course,  I  have  no  legal  claim  on  him,  no  more  than  what  Miss  Barrow 
had,  but  I  should  like  to  know  he  has  got  a  good  home,  and  if  the  uncles 
can  give  him  a  better  home  than  he  has  got  here,  and  they  wish  to  take 
him,  of  course  I  cannot  stop  it."  My  wife  was  present,  and  showed  him 
some  things  she  had  made  for  the  boy,  some  new  flannel  underclothing, 
the  same  as  she  had  made  for  her  children,  and  he  said,  "  Yes,  I  can 
see  the  boy  is  well  cared  for."  Although  the  interview — which  lasted 
about  tbjTee-quarters  of  an  hour — was  a  little  stormy  at  the  beginning, 
it  was  very  friendly  at  the  end.  I  said,  "  I  am  going  to  have  the  girl  down 
for  Christmas.  I  have  never  seen  her  in  my  life.  Don't  upset  the  girl  by 
letting  her  know  of  Miss  Barrow's  death ;  leave  it  to  me  to  break  the 
news  gently,  as  I  have  done  to  the  boy."  I  added,  "  We  could  go  to 
the  orphanage  and  try  and  arrange  to  bring  her  up  for  Christmas,  and 
she  could  spend  Christmas  with  her  brother."  We  parted  quite  friendly, 
and  shook  hands.  That  was  the  last  I  saw  of  Mr.  Vonderahe. 

I  heard  that  he  had  been  making  inquiries  at  the  undertakers  who 
had  advised  him  to  see  a  solicitor,  but  he  said  he  did  not  want  to  bother 
with  any  solicitors.  I  first  knew  that  an  inquiry  was  going  on  into  this 
matter,  so  far  as  the  public  were  concerned,  on  22nd  November,  when  the 
coroner's  officer  called  upon  me  while  I  was  busy  with  correspondence  in 
my  office.  He  started  making  inquiries  about  Miss  Barrow's  death,  and 
I  answered  them  all,  and  gave  evidence  at  the  inquest  on  the  following 
day.  The  notice  was  very  short,  because  it  was  between  9  and  10  o'clock 
in  the  evening  when  the  interview  took  place,  and  the  inquest  was  for 
the  following  morning.  I  was  arrested  by  Ward  on  4th  December. 

The  first  thing  Ward  told  you  was  that  you  were  charged  with  the 
murder  of  Miss  Barrow  by  poisoning  her  with  arsenic? — He  came  up 
afterwards  and  told  me  if  I  came  round  the  corner  he  would  let  me  know 
why  I  was  arrested.  He  took  me  into  Fon thill  Road. 

There  is  only  one  other  matter  I  want  to  ask  you  about.  Just  take 
your  Post  Office  Savings  Bank  book  (handed).  The  bedroom  safe  £100 
has  been  exhausted.  In  the  downstairs  safe  there  was  £15  in  gold.  How 
was  that  £15  in  gold  downstairs  used? — I  used  it  for  my  holiday  at 
Southend. 

That  disposes  of  all  the  money  in  the  downstairs  safe? — Yes. 

I   see  by   that  book  that   on    27th   November,    1911,  you   withdrew 

169 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

£43  17s.  9d.  from  the  Post  Office  Savings  Bank? — Yes.  Of  that  money 
£20  was  in  £5  notes.  I  put  £20  of  the  gold  in  a  bag,  and  wrote  out- 
side "  £20."  I  drew  £1,  and  then  put  "  £19  "  on  the  bag,  that  being 
the  bag  that  has  been  produced,  and  was  found  by  the  police  in  my  safe. 
This  £43  17s.  9d.  was  drawn  out  so  as  to  always  have  cash  on  hand, 
as  I  had  always  been  in  the  habit  of  doing. 

There  is  one  final  question  I  want  to  ask  you.  Did  you  ever 
administer  or  cause  to  be  administered  to  Miss  Barrow  any  arsenic  in  any 
shape  or  form  whatever? — I  never  purchased  arsenic  in  my  life  in  any 
shape  or  form.  I  never  administered  arsenic.  I  never  advised,  directed, 
or  instructed  the  purchase  of  arsenic  in  any  shape  or  form.  I  never 
advised,  directed,  or  instructed  the  administration  of  arsenic.  That  I 
swear. 

S  Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Miss  Barrow  lived  with  you 
from  26th  July,  1910,  till  the  morning  of  14th  September,  1911  ?— Yes. 

Did  you  like  her?— Did  I  like  her? 

Yes,  that  is  the  question? — She  was  not  a  woman  that  you  could  be 
in  love  with,  but  I  deeply  sympathised  with  her. 

Was  she  a  woman  about  eight  or  nine  years  older  than  yourself  ? — She 
was  nine  years  older  than  myself. 

You  talked  of  her  as  "an  old  lady  "  when  you  went  to  the  under- 
taker?— I  always  addressed  her  as  an  "old  lady." 

During  the  time  that  she  was  living  with  you  at  your  house  did  you 
advise  her  on  her  financial  affairs? — Certainly,  I  advised  her. 

From  quite  an  early  period  of  her  coming  to  your  house  did  she, 
to  use  your  words,  place  herself  under  your  protection? — Only  against 
Hook. 

When  she  came  to  live  with  you  on  26th  July  of  1910  she  had,  as 
you  ascertained  afterwards,  £1600  India  3£  per  cent,  stock.  Is  that 
right? — I  did  not  ascertain  that  till  September. 

But  that  is  what  she  had  when  she  came  to  you  on  26th  July,  1910, 
as  you  afterwards  ascertained? — She  must  have  possessed  it. 

And  that  would  bring  in? — A  trifle  over  £1  a  week. 

Was  she  also  the  leaseholder  of  the  premises,  the  Buck's  Head  and 
the  barber's  shop? — The  superior  leaseholder,  yes. 

And  was  she  drawing  an  income  from  that  of  at  least  £120  per 
annum? — Something  like  that. 

Was  that  a  lease  that  would  expire  in  1929? — About  eighteen  years. 
or  eighteen  and  a  half,  at  the  time  she  was  speaking  to  me.  That  was 
another  source  of  anxiety  to  her. 

And  were  Truman,  Hanbury  &  Co.  the  tenants  of  the  public-house, 
the  Buck's  Head,  for  the  period  of  her  lease? — For  the  full  period? 

Yes? — I  do  not  know.  I  was  under  the  impression  that  they  could 
give  up  the  tenancy. 

Do  you  mean  when  the  assignment  was  made? — Up  to  the  time  I 
was  advising  her. 

Do  you  mean  that  at  the  time  the  assignment  was  made? — To  me? 

Yes? — No,  because  Mr.   Keeble  had  explained  then. 

At  any  rate,  at  the  time  the  assignment  was  made  you  knew  that 
170 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Messrs.    Truman,   Hanbury  &  Co.   were  sub-lessees  for  the  whole  period 
of  her  term? — Yes. 

She  had  to  pay  £20  rent  to  her  lessor,  and  she  would  get  from 
Truman,  Hanbury  <fe  Co.  £105  a  year  for  the  tenancy  of  the  public- 
house,  is  that  right? — Yes. 

And  £50  a  year  from  the  tenant  of  the  barber's  shop? — Yes. 

Then  she  had  the  compensation  fund  to  pay  out  of  it.  I  will  not 
forget  that.  That  will  be  £155  without  going  into  any  detail;  I  will 
take  your  own  figure ;  after  paying  out  whatever  sums  there  were  to  be 
paid  from  that  £155  it  left  her  an  income  of  £128? — I  believe  so. 

So  that  she  had  £120  a  year  until  1929,  and  she  had  £56  a  year 
coming  from  the  India  3£  per  cent,  stock,  as  you  subsequently  found  out? — 
Yes. 

What  are  you  looking  at? — Some  figures. 

You  will  do  much  better  to  listen  to  the  questions  I  am  putting  to 
you.  In  your  own  interests  it  is  better  that  you  should  not  give 
me  only  half  your  attention  to  what  I  am  asking.  If  there  is  anything 
you  want  to  look  at,  say  so,  and  I  will  wait  until  you  nave  looked  at  it? — 
I  want  to  make  sure  as  to  the  returns  From  the  property — what  she  got 
from  her  property — so  much  a  year. 

I  thought  we  had  agreed  on  that;  I  have  put  this  question  to  you 
already.  As  I  said  to  you,  I  will  take  it  without  going  into  too  great 
detail.  You  said  it  was  a  little  over  £1  a  week  from  the  India  stock? — 
Yes. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  that,  and  as  to  the  rest  I  have  taken  your 
own  figures.  As  you  subsequently  ascertained,  she  had  also  over  £200 
in  the  Finsbury  and  City  of  London  Savings  Bank? — Yes. 

She  also  had  a  cash  box  with  some  money  in  it  when  she  came  to 
you? — Yes. 

Some  gold? — I  do  not  know;  I  never  saw  the  inside  of  the  cash  box. 

There  was  some  money  in  the  cash  box,  according  to  a  statement  she 
made  to  you? — £30  or  £35,  she  said. 

And  you  did  not  know  whether  it  was  in  notes  or  cash  ? — I  only  took 
her  statement  for  it. 

Are  you  representing  to  my  lord  and  the  jury  that  you  never  knew 
whether  she  had  notes  in  the  cash  box  or  not? — At  that  date,  yes. 

At  any  date? — I  knew  she  had  notes  in  October,  because  she  had 
given  some  to  me. 

From  the  cash  box  ? — I  do  not  know  where  she  got  them  from. 

Had  she  a  banking  account? — The  Finsbury 

Any  banking  account  except  that? — I  do  not  know. 

Now,  we  will  leave  out  of  consideration  for  the  moment  altogether 
the  cash  box  and  the  notes  from  that  or  elsewhere.  She  came  to  you, 
then,  with  India  3£  per  cent,  stock,  bringing  in  £1  a  week,  the  property 
bringing  in  £120  a  year,  and  over  £200  in  the  Finsbury  Savings  Bank; 
that  is  right? — Yes. 

She  remained  in  your  house  from  that  date,  26th  July,  1910,  till 
14th  September,  1911,  when  you  examined  all  that  there  was  to  see  of  the 
property  that  was  left? — Yes. 

171 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

When  she  came  to  live  with  you  did  she  bring  this  boy  Ernie  Grant 
with  her? — Yes. 

And  did  he  live  with  her  right  up  to  the  end? — Yes, 

Did  you  know  that  he  was  an  orphan? — Yes. 

That  she  was  deeply  attached  to  him? — No. 

That  she  was  looking  after  him? — Yes. 

That  she  cared  for  him? — Well,  she  found  him  very  useful  to  her. 

He  lived  with  her  entirely? — Yes. 

She  paid  for  him? — She  could  not  very  well  do  without  him. 

And  she  paid  for  him — she  clothed  and  fed  him? — Oh,  yes,  yes. 

She  had  been  very  attached  to  his  mother,  had  she  not,  you  knew 
that? — Not  that  I  have  learnt;  I  have  heard  they  quarrelled  a  lot. 

But  she  certainly  had  some  desire  to  leave  property  to  the  boy,  had 
she  not? — She  was  satisfied  that  the  boy  had  a  good  home  with  me. 

What  do  you  mean  by  that? — Because  I  promised  her  he  should  have 
a  home  with  me. 

When  did  you  promise  her  that? — I  often  told  her  that. 

When  did  you  tell  it  her  first? — I  could  not  say  for  certain. 

About  when,  do  you  think? — I  could  not  remember. 

Was  it  about  the  time  that  you  entered  into  these  negotiations  to 
grant  her  the  annuity? — I  think  it  was  about  March — about  the  time  I 
got  the  letter  from  her  when  she  was  talking  about  the  will,  when  she 
had  been  to  a  funeral,  as  far  as  I  recollect — about  that  date. 

On  14th  September,  1911,  when  she  died,  was  all  the  property  that 
was  found  of  hers  a  sum  of  £10  in  gold,  and  furniture,  jewellery,  and 
other  belongings  to  the  value  of  £16  14s.  6d.  ? — According  to  the  inven- 
tory taken  by  Mr.  Gregory,  a  reputed  auctioneer  and  appraiser,  it  was 
£16  odd. 

And  the  only  cash  that  was  left  was,  according  to  you,  £10,  of 
which  £4  10s.  was  found  in  the  box,  £3  in  the  fold  of  a  paper  in  tho 
drawer,  and  £2  10s.  in  a  bag  which  was  hanging  by  the  bed? — That,  I 
swear,  was  all  I  found. 

And  during  that  time,  and  until  you  made  the  arrangements  about 
the  annuity,  was  the  amount  which  she  had  to  pay  to  you  12s.  u  weekt 
— Rent,  yes. 

There  was,  besides  that,  as  I  have  understood  from  what  you  have 
said,  a  shilling  a  day  which  she  paid  to  your  daughter  Maggie? — For 
pocket  money. 

Which  would  make  the  total  amount  she  had  to  pay  19s.  a  week. 
She  lived  upstairs  in  the  bedroom  with  this  little  boy  Ernie,  did  she  not? 
— Yes,  she  had  four  rooms. 

For  the  12s.  she  had  the  four  rooms? — Yes. 

She  lived  very  simply? — She  did  not  live  as  simply  as  what  we  lived 
ourselves. 

At  any  rate,  as  I  understand  it,  so  simply  that  your  daughter  cooked 
her  food  mostly? — My  daughter  never  cooked  chickens  for  her.  What- 
ever plain  food  she  had,  my  daughter  cooked,  but  whenever  she  had 
anything  eke  that  needed  my  wife  to  cook  my  wife  cooked  it  for  her. 

She  was  living  well  within  the  income  I  have  just  referred  to,  was 
she  not? — I  could  not  say. 

172 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Have  you  any  reason  to  doubt  it? — I  was  the  superintendent  of  an 
insurance  company;  I  was  not  the  housekeeper. 

So  far  as  you  know,  during  the  time  that  she  lived  in  that  house, 
was  she  living  within  her  income,  as  far  as  you  could  judge? — I  could  not 
say;  I  had  not  any  idea. 

That  means,  at  any  rate,  that  you  had  not  any  idea — you  did  not 
know  that  she  lived  above  it? — I  knew  when  my  wife  was  cooking  chickens 
and  anything  like  that  for  her.  She  had  everything  she  fancied,  as  far 
as  I  knew. 

Did  you  know  that  your  wife  had  had  a  number  of  bank  notes  which 
had  come  from  her? — I  knew  my  wife  had  one. 

You  know  now,  do  you  not,  from  what  has  been  proved  and  admitted 
in  this  case — proved  by  some  forty  witnesses  altogether — that  during 
this  period  thirty-three  bank  notes  have  been  traced  either  to  you  or  to 
your  wife? — My  wife  tells  me  that  she  admits  it,  and  I  admit  six. 

That  makes,  at  any  rate,  £165  in  notes  which  somehow  or  other 
had  come  from  her  during  the  period  in  which  she  was  living  in  your 
house? — Which  she  has  apparently  turned  into  cash. 

Who  is   "she"?— Miss  Barrow. 

What  do  you  mean  by  "apparently  turned  into  cash"? — That  she 
has  had  the  notes  turned  into  cash. 

Who — Miss  Barrow? — Yes. 

Let  us  go  by  steps  and  see  what  you  mean.  Thirty- three  £5  notes 
have  been  traced  as  coming  from  her  to  you  or  to  your  wife? — Yes. 

What  I  am  putting  to  you  is  that  that,  at  any  rate,  shows  that  she 
had  at  least  £165  in  notes  within  the  period  that  she  was  in  your  house? 
— I  do  not  attempt  to  deny  it. 

And  that  she  came  with  those  notes  to  your  house? — I  could  not 
say. 

Where  did  you  say  the  notes  came  from? — I  could  not  say. 

When  did  you  first  know  that  your  wife  had  used  a  false  name  and 
address  in  cashing  these  notes? — When  she  was  arrested. 

Did  she  tell  you — (What  are  you  looking  for? — Only  a  drink  of 
water).  Take  it  by  all  means  (handed)? — I  heard  it  in  evidence  at  the 
Police  Court,  and  I  asked  my  wife  about  it  in  the  dock.  She  said  yes, 
ehe  had  given  a  wrong  name  and  address  at  one  or  two  where  she  was  not 
known. 

Any  other  explanation  ? — I  have  another  explanation ;  she  said  she  gave 
Miss  Barrow  the  change,  of  course,  when  she  cashed  them;  she  explained 
that  to  me. 

Did  she  explain  that  to  you  in  the  dock? — I  certainly  questioned 
her  in  the  dock,  because  it  was  a  big  surprise  to  me.  She  said  that  Miss 
Barrow  had  always  had  the  change;  she  was  asked  to  cash  them  for  her. 

Was  that  why  she  was  giving  a  false  name  and  address? — I  do  not 
know  why  she  gave  the  false  name  and  address.  She  said  she  had  only 
done  it  where  she  was  not  known.  She  did  not  want  everybody  to  know 
who  she  was. 

Why  should  not  everybody  know  who  she  was  when  she  was  cashing 
a  £5  note? — She  explained  to  me  if  she  went  into  a  shop  where  she  was 

173 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

not  known  to  buy  a  small  article  she  did  not  want  everybody  to  know 
who  she  was. 

Do  you  mean  making  purchases  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things? — 
Yes,  I  think  so.  That  is  what  I  understood  from  her. 

Children's  clothing? — I  do  not  know  what  they  were. 

Is  that  the  only  explanation  that  has  been  given  to  you,  according  to 
you? — She  has  not  had  much  time  to  give  me  much  explanation.  She 
has  been  in  custody  all  the  time.  She  could  only  whisper  this  to  me 
at  the  North  London  Police  Court.  I  was  naturally  anxious  and  sur- 
prised, and  I  wanted  an  explanation. 

Do  you  know  that  those  notes  have  been  traced  as  having  been 
cashed  during  every  single  month  of  the  year  from  October  to  the  end 
of  August,  1911? — No,  I  do  not. 

Was  it  about  October  that  you  began  negotiations  with  her  about 
an  annuity? — About  September,  I  think. 

According  to  the  documents  we  have,  the  first  letter  is  5th  October? 
— Yes.  Would  that  be  the  first  letter  to  the  Bank  of  England? 

It  is  the  first  letter  of  which  we  have  any  trace? — Yes. 

You,  of  course,  were  very  familiar  with  annuity  transactions? — I 
was  not. 

Your  company  did  annuity  business? — Yes,  I  believe  so,  but  I  never 
during  the  whole  twenty  years  I  was  with  the  company  once  introduced 
an  annuity. 

You  are  familiar  with  your  company's  prospectuses? — Yes,  they  have 
an  annuity. 

Do  you  not  know  there  is  a  table  for  immediate  annuities,  as  they 
have  for  all  kinds  of  policies? — Yes. 

And  I  suppose  you  get  a  commission  from  your  company  for  any 
special  business  you  may  introduce  ? — Yes  ;  I  do  not  know  what  the  special 
commission  is  on  that  table. 

It  would  not  appear  on  the  table,  of  course? — No,  but  I  have  never 
been  informed  what  the  commission  on  that  table  is. 

According  to  your  statement  you  arrived  at  an  agreement  with  her 
that  she  was  to  transfer  to  you  all  her  India  stock  and  her  property, 
the  "  Buck's  Head  "  and  the  barber's  shop,  and  you  were  to  give  her 
an  annuity  of  £2  to  £3  a  week? — What  she  wanted. 

That  was  her  proposal? — Yes. 

And  you  were  advising  her? — I  was  agreeing  with  her. 

Had  you  ever  done  an  annuity  transaction  before? — Never  in  my 
life. 

This  is  the  one  solitary  instance? — Yes;  it  has  never  entered  my 
mind. 

This  has  turned  out  a  remarkably  profitable  investment  from  the 
monetary  point  of  view? — Only  from  that  point  of  view. 

On  your  statement  you  had   paid   out  altogether   £91? — Yes. 

And  the  whole  of  the  property  fell  in  to  you? — I  was  already  in 
possession  of  the  whole  of  the  property. 

But  you  had  no  longer  any  money  to  pay  out? — That  did  not  yield 
me  very  much. 
174 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

What  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  did  not  yield  you  very  much? — 
I  had  only  to  pay  out  £2  8s.  a  week. 

But  it  left  you  at  any  rate  in  possession  of  the  property,  without 
any  payment  to  make  at  all? — But  I  was  7s.  a  week  out  that  was  paid 
to  my  daughter,  and  I  had  the  boy  to  keep,  which  was  nearly  13s.  a 
week ;  that  is  £1  a  week.  It  only  left  me  28s. 

You  had  got  the  property  on  the  condition  that  you  were  to  pay 
out  the  annuity? — Yes,  exactly,  which  I  did. 

vou  had  sold  the  India  3£  per  cent,  stock  for  some  £1516? — For  a 
better  investment. 

You  had  bought  the  property  in  Coutts  Road  with  that? — Yes. 

The  fourteen  houses  which  we  have  heard  of? — Which  brought  me 
£4  a  week  against  her  £1 — £4  a  week  profit  against  her  £1  a  week. 

You  had  got  that  property? — Yes,  exactly;  it  was  good  security  for 
her,  too. 

What  I  am  putting  to  you  is  that  when  she  died  it  is  clear  you  had 
no  longer  to  pay  out  money  to  her,  whatever  it  was  you  had  agreed  to 
pay  her  1 — Certainly  not ;  that  is  the  basis  on  which  an  annuity  is  granted. 

That  I  agree.  It  is  very  important,  of  course,  in  the  purchase  of 
an  annuity  to  have  security  that  the  money  would  be  paid? — Yes. 

Would  you  tell  me  what  security  you  gave  her  for  the  payment  of 
the  annuity  during  the  whole  of  the  remainder  of  her  life  on  the  India 
3J  per  cent.? — Yes,  she  had  12s.  a  week  saved  in  rent,  which  was  entered 
in  her  rent  book  "  rent  free,"  as  arranged,  and  I  gave  her  an  annuity 
certificate  in  payment  of  the  amount  of  the  annuity  which  would  be  paid 
to  her  by  my  heirs,  executors,  or  administrators  in  the  event  of  my 
decease. 

You  are  speaking  of  an  annuity  certificate? — Yes. 

You  told  the  coroner  at  the  inquest  that  this  arrangement  about  the 
3£  per  cent,  was  a  verbal  one? — At  that  time  it  was  a  verbal  arrange- 
ment. She  got  no  annuity  certificate  from  the  date  she  transferred  the 
stock  from  October  until  January. 

What  is  the  annuity  certificate  that  you  are  speaking  of? — It  is  a  type- 
written certificate  drawn  up  by  myself  and  signed  and  witnessed  over  a 
sixpenny  stamp. 

Where  is  it  ? — I  do  not  know  where  the  original  is ;  there  is  a  copy  of 
it  in  existence. 

I  should  like  to  see  the  original? — The  original  is  with  the  duplicate 
deed  of  the  Buck's  Head.  Miss  Barrow  had  charge  of  that,  of  course. 

Whatever  the  document  was,  the  security  was  the  obligation  on  you 
to  pay? — I  am  bound  legally  to  pay. 

Oh,  I  know,  but  do  you  mean  to  say  you  do  not  know  the  difference 
between  security  and  a  personal  obligation  on  you  to  pay  after  your 
years'  experience  in  business  ? — I  had  5  to  1  on  security. 

I  am  not  asking  about  you ;  I  have  no  doubt  you  had  sufficient 
security? — I  intended  to  carry  out  my  obligations.  I  have  never  been 
known  to  break  them  during  the  whole  course  of  my  life. 

I  put  to  you  a  very  definite  question,  and  I  want  your  answer  to  it. 
You  were  dealing  with  this  woman  who  was  living  in  your  house,  and 
who  had  certainly,  as  regards  this  matter,  no  other  advice? — That  was 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

her  fault ;  ehe  was  offered  it ;  she  was  advised  to  have  a  solicitor.  What 
more  could  a  man  do?  I  bound  myself  by  legal  documents  to  pay  her 
the  annuity,  and  I  carried  out  my  obligations. 

Till  14th  September? — I  would  have  carried  them  out  during  the 
whole  course  so  long  as  she  lived.  The  funds  were  increasing  year 
by  year.  I  was  getting  stronger  financially  all  the  time,  and  I  gave  her 
better  value  than  the  Post  Office  could  give  by  over  £460. 

This  is  what  you  said,  is  it  true — "  I  guaranteed  to  her  another 
annuity  from  the  1st  January  on  India  stock  of  £72  a  year,  and  she 
saved  12s.  a  week  in  rent.  She  had  no  security"? — I  do  not  think  I 
said  it  in  that  form. 

Is  that  not  true  ? — I  think  it  was  a  leading  question  put  by  the  coroner. 

But  is  it  not  true  that  she  had  no  security? — Isn't  legal  documents 
security — isn't  my  financial  strength  security? 

Did  you  realise  she  had  the  security  in  respect  of  the  £1  a  week  from 
the  Buck's  Head  charge? — She  had. 

Charged  on  the  property? — Charged  on  the  property. 

That  is  security? — Yes,  that  is  security. 

Do  you  wish  the  jury  to  believe  that  you  do  not  know  the  difference 
between 'making  an  obligation  to  pay  the  money  and  giving  security  for 
the  payment  of  it? — But  isn't  a  legally  drawn  up  certificate  security  on 
my  estate? 

Do  you  not  know  that  is  only  a  personal  obligation  on  you? — I  under- 
stand it  is  recoverable  by  law. 

Well,  I  have  given  you  an  opportunity  of  dealing  with  it.  "  She 
transferred  it  to  me  in  October  on  the  verbal  condition  that  I  should  allow 
her  an  annuity  in  all  of  between  £2  10s.  and  £3  per  week."  That  is 
right? — That  is  right. 

So  that  in  October,  when  she  transferred  this  to  you,  you  were  in 
complete  possession  of  it? — I  was  in  possession  of  the  £1600  of  India 
stock.  She  was  depending  absolutely  upon  my  verbal  promise  to  grant 
her  the  annuity  at  that  date. 

You  told  us  that  all  this  as  regards  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's 
shop  was  done  by  solicitors,  and  that  the  stock  was  transferred  by  stock- 
brokers, and  so  forth? — Yes. 

Did  you  try  to  do  it  first  of  all  without  solicitors  and  stockbrokers  ? — 
I  believe  I  did. 

Did  you  try  to  do  it  by  a  document  which  you  drew  up  between 
yourself  and  her? — Yes. 

Without  any  solicitors  in  the  matter  at  all? — Yes. 

Or  stockbroker  ? — Yes ;  well,  I  did  not  try  to  do  it,  but  I  drafted  up 
a  document. 

Did  you  have  it  witnessed? — Yes. 

By  whom? — My  wife. 

Anybody  else? — Not  to  her  signature. 

To  whose  signature? — To  my  signature. 

By  whom  was  it  witnessed? — It  was  a  double  document,  you  see. 

By  whom  did  you  have  your  signature  witnessed? — Mrs.  Seddon' 8 
brother. 

What  is  his  name? — Arthur  Jones. 
176 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Anybody  else? — I  cannot  recollect. 

What  has  become  of  that  document? — It  was  destroyed. 

Why? — Because  I  intended  to  put  the  document  in  the  hands  of  the 
solicitors,  Russell  &  Sons,  and  have  the  whole  property  investigated. 

Were  you  advised  that  a  document  drawn  up  in  that  way  was  of  no 
account  ? — Yes . 

And  therefore  you  went  to  the  solicitors? — Oh,  no,  no;  it  was  the 
solicitor,  Mr.  Keeble,  that  advised  me  a  document  of  that  description 
would  be  of  no  account. 

And  that,  therefore,  it  had  to  be  drawn  up  in  proper  legal  form? — 
Exactly ;  that  is  how  it  is. 

The  solicitors  came  upon  the  scene? — I  had  gone  to  them. 

But  you  had  gone  to  them  to  advise  you  as  to  whether  this  document 
was  good? — No;  I  decided  myself  that  the  document  was  not  good. 

Why? — Because  I  did  not  consider  it  would  be  sufficient. 

What  was  the  matter  with  it? — I  cannot  recollect  now  the  terms  of 
it  exactly.  It  was  a  document  that  I  drew  up  myself ;  it  was  not  drawn 
up  in  a  proper  legal  way. 

It  was  what? — It  was  a  document  that  was  not  drawn  up  in  a  proper 
legal  way ;  it  was  in  general  terms — something  to  the  effect  that  I  would 
allow  her  so  much  a  year,  and  she  would  transfer  the  stock  and  property. 

The  point  of  the  question  that  I  am  putting  to  you  is  this,  you  have 
been  laying  stress  on  the  fact  that  this  was  done  through  solicitors  and 
brokers,  and  all  done  in  regular  form? — So  it  was. 

Was  not  that  because  you  were  advised  that  having  started  to  do  it 
yourself  it  would  not  be  a  good  and  valid  document? — No. 

You  were  so  advised? — I  was  so  advised. 

And  you  had  drawn  it  up  beforehand? — Yes. 

And  you  had  intended  to  carry  it  out? — I  decided  before  I  went  to 
the  solicitors.  I  studied  it  myself. 

You  studied  what  yourself? — The  document.  I  considered  myself 
it  would  be  no  good.  One  thought  led  to  another  in  the  transaction. 
I  did  not  intend  to  grant  her  an  annuity  first  myself.  It  was  when  she 
suggested  that  I  should  grant  her  an  annuity  the  thought  entered  my 
head,  and  I  started,  of  course,  to  study  it ;  one  thought  led  to  another, 
and  this  is  when  I  drafted  the  document  up. 

Not  only  had  you  drafted  the  document  up,  but  you  had  had  it 
witnessed  by  your  wife,  according  to  you,  your  wife's  brother,  and  I  sug- 
gest to  you  somebody  else? — Yes. 

A  Mr.  Robert? — Roberts. 

John  Roberts? — Some  name  like  that. 

So  that  was  the  document.  It  had  been  signed  when  you  had  it  ? — 
Well  it  had  not  been  signed  entirely ;  they  witnessed  my  signature  after- 
wards. 

You  signed  it? — Yes. 

And  your  wife  witnessed  your  signature? — No. 

I  thought  you  told  us  that? — No,  my  wife  witnessed  Miss  Barrow's 
signature. 

Your  wife  witnessed  Miss  Barrow's  signature,  and  your  wife's  brother 
and  Mr.  John  Roberts  witnessed  your  signature  ? — The  next  day. 

M  177 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

So  that  the  document  was  complete? — For  what  it  was  worth. 

Who  is  Louie? — A  sister  of  mine. 

Were  you  anxious  that  this  matter  should  not  come  out  at  the 
inquest  about  your  having  drawn  the  document  first  of  all,  and  having  had 
it  witnessed  before  you  went  to  the  lawyers? — No. 

Did  you  wish  the  assurance  given  to  your  brother-in-law,  Arthur 
Jones,  that  he  was  not  in  it  at  all? — Yes. 

And  that  he  would  not  be  called? — Yes. 

And  that  nothing  would  come  out  about  those  original  documents 
which  have  been  drawn? — I  did  not  say  so. 

Was  not  that  the  effect  of  it? — No. 

Was  not  that  what  you  meant? — No. 

And  everything  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  lawyers  ? — I  told  him 
that  before  he  left  London. 

In  point  of  fact,  nothing  has  ever  been  said  until  the  question  I  put 
to  you  just  now  had  been  answered  about  these  documents  having  been 
drawn  up  and  this  document  having  been  drawn  up  and  witnessed  before 
the  lawyers  came  upon  the  scene  at  all? — Nothing  had  been  said  to  any- 
body. 

Nothing  had  been  said  either  at  the  inquest  or  at  the  Police  Court? — 
No. 

Or  here  in  this  Court? — No;   because  they  are  non-existent. 

I  want  to  put  one  question  to  you  to  which  I  want  your  particular 
attention.  By  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow  you  benefited  in  money,  at  any 
rate,  by  not  having  to  pay  the  annuity? — To  the  amount  of  28s. 

And  the  amount  of  20s. — you  arrive  at ? — Weekly 

By  taking  into  account  the  12s.  a  week  which  you  would  have  to  pay, 
as  I  understand  you 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — He  said  he  would  have  to  pay  13s.  for  the  boy, 
and  he  would  lose  the  7s.  that  the  girl  got. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Will  you  tell  us,  I  am  not  sure  how  you 
make  that  up? — I  paid  her  £2  8s.  a  week.  Out  of  that  my  daughter 
received  7s.  That  makes  £2  Is.  Then  I  keep  and  clothe  the  boy, 
which  I  consider  is  equal  to  13s.  a  week,  so  that  is  £1  out  of  £2  8s.,  which 
leaves  28s.  And  at  that  time  I  am  in  receipt  of  £14  14s.  3d.  weekly. 

Can  you  tell  me  whether  you  can  suggest  anybody  else  who  would 
benefit,  according  to  what  you  know,  in  money,  by  the  death  of  Miss 
Barrow? — If  Miss  Barrow  died  intestate  naturally  the  cousins  would 
inherit. 

Yes,  but  she  did  make  a  will? — But  the  relatives  were  not  aware  of 
that  before  she  died. 

The  will  was  made  on  the  llth,  and  she  died  on  the  morning  of 
the  14th?— Yes. 

I  am  asking  you  about  what  the  state  of  affairs  was  on  the  morning 
of  the  14th,  when  she  died.  Was  there  anybody  who  would  benefit  by 
the  death  except  yourself? — And  the  children. 

To  the  extent  you  mean  of  the  furniture  and  belongings? — Yes. 

I  will  leave  that  out;  that  was  a  small  matter  of  £16? — No;  I 
cannot  say  that  they  would,  but  I  had  not  taken  that  into  consideration. 

What? — I  had  not  got  that  in  my  mind. 
178 


Evidence  for  Defence. 


Frederick  H.  Seddon 

But,  I  am  right  in  saying,  am  I  not,  that  there  was  nobody  else 
would  benefit  except  the  children  to  that  extent? — You  put  that  in  my 
mind. 

That  is  right,   is  it  not? — Yes,   of  course. 

What  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  I  put  that  in  your  mind ;  do 
you  mean  that  it  had  never  occurred  to  you  before? — I  had  not  given  it 
consideration  before. 

Do  you  mean  you  had  not  thought  of  this  before? — Only  by  what 
the  prosecution  had  suggested,  that  the  fact  of  my  benefiting  may 

What? — From  the  fact  of  my  benefiting  they  considered  they  were 
justified  in  arresting  me. 

Was  Miss  Barrow  a  person  of '  ordinary  mental  capacity? — Yes, 
ordinary ;  I  consider  she  was  a  very  deep  woman. 

Was  she  very  deaf  ? — She  was  not  deaf  that  she  could  not  hear ; 
she  could  hear  fairly  well ;  you  had  to  speak  in  her  ear ;  she  could  hear 
me  speaking  in  ordinary  tones,  if  I  was  speaking  close  to  her  ear.  She 
could  hear  music  and  singing  well. 

She  wore  glasses  to  read  by,  did  she  not? — Sometimes,  not  always. 
She  could  see  without  glasses. 

And  the  room  in  which  she  lived,  I  suppose,  was  an  ordinary 
bedroom  ? — Yes. 

With  the  ordinary  bedroom  furniture? — Yes. 

I  mean,  with  a  basin,  jug,   and  water? — Yes. 

Water  bottle,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  with  a  glass? — Yes. 

A  chest  of  drawers? — Yes. 

And  a  bed,  and  the  usual  bedroom  furniture? — Yes. 

Where  was  the  light  in  that  room? — Over  the  mantelpiece. 

What  light  was   it? — Gas  light. 

During  the  whole  time  that  she  was  with  you,  from  26th  July,  1910,  to 
1st  September,  1911,  had  you  ever  known  her  to  be  laid  up? — Occasionally 
a  day  or  two  in  bed,  or  anything  like  that,  but  never  what  you  would  call 
bedfast. 

You  said  something  just  now  to  my  learned  friend  about  your  not 
thinking  she  was  a  good  life? — I  did  not;  from  my  observations,  I 
considered  she  was  an  indifferent  life. 

Did  you  form  that  opinion  at  the  time  you  were  negotiating  with 
her  for  the  annuity? — I  might  have  done. 

You  would  have  done? — Yes,  I  might  have  done;  I  looked  upon 
her  as  an  indifferent  life. 

That  is  an  element  which  you  would  take  into  account  in  determining 
whether  or  not  you  would  enter  into  the  annuity  transaction? — Her 
average  expectation  of  life  in  any  case  was  only  twenty  or  twenty-one 
years,  and  I  calculated  if  she  lived  out  that  term  how  my  financial 
position  would  be;  it  would  increase  year  by  year. 

Your  view  was  that  she  would  not  live  over  that  term? — I  did  not 
feel  she  would. 

And  according  to  your  view,  as  you  have  expressed  it,  you  thought 
she  would  live  less  than  that  term? — Yes,  I  did  not  expect  her  to  live 
her  average  expectation  of  life — a  woman  in  her  indifferent  state  of 
health. 

179 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

And  you  have  told  us  you  would  not  expect  her  to  live  twenty-one 
years  ? — Yes ;  she  would  not  be  a  life  that  I  could  recommend  to  an 
insurance  company  to  accept. 

I  should  like  to  understand,  if  the  ordinary  expectation  of  her  life 
was  twenty-one  years — the  life  of  a  woman  of  that  age — and  you  thought, 
as  you  told  us,  it  was  going  to  be  less  than  that,  what  sort  of  a  view  did 
you  form  in  your  own  mind  about  it? — I  could  not  say;  I  could  not  tell 
how  long  the  woman  was  going  to  live. 

But  some  years  less? — I  have  known  people  in  consumption  outlive 
healthy  people;  as  the  old  saying  is,  "A  creaky  gate  hangs  a  long 
time." 

During  the  whole  time  that  she  was  at  your  house,  how  often  were 
you  in  her  room?  Take,  first  of  all,  the  period  before  1st  September, 
when  she  was  taken  ill? — I  never  went  up  into  Miss  Barrow's  room 
excepting  I  had  occasion  as  the  landlord  of  the  house  to  go,  whenever 
she  had  repairs  she  wanted  to  do — when  she  complained  of  whiting  falling 
off  the  ceiling,  and  that  sort  of  thing. 

Did  she  used  to  come  into  your  room  at  all? — Always  into  the  dining 
room ;  she  had  the  free  use  of  the  house ;  she  went  where  she  liked. 

From  the  time  she  was  ill,  1st  September,  is  it  right  that  your  wife 
was  attending  her? — Yes. 

And  looked  after  the  food? — Yes,  as  far  as  I  knew. 

And  looked  after  her  generally  from  the  time  she  was  ill? — Yes, 
she  wanted  her ;  it  was  too  much  for  Maggie. 

You  told  us  about  the  will  you  made  on  llth  September.  Had  you 
any  idea  that  she  wanted  to  make  a  will? — Not  until  my  wife  told  me. 

When  was  that? — I  could  not  swear  whether  it  was  on  the  Sunday 
or  the  Monday,  the  day  that  it  was  made ;  I  am  not  quite  sure.  It  was 
mentioned  to  me  twice  before  I  attended  to  it. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  you  did  draw  the  will? — Oh,  I  did,  yes;  I  do 
not  deny  it. 

It  is  in  your  handwriting? — Yes. 

You  have  told  us  about  the  instructions  she  gave  you  as  to  what 
she  wanted? — Yes,  but  I  knew  what  she  wanted  doing,  she  had  often 
told  me. 

Did  you  think  it  was  important  that  she  should  make  a  will  that 
day? — I  did  not  think  it  was  important  that  she  should  make  a  will  that 
day,  I  only  drafted  it  up  to  satisfy  her ;  it  was  my  intention  to  go  and 
see  Mr.  Keeble  and  get  a  proper  one  drafted  up. 

Drawn  by  a  solicitor? — The  one  that  had  acted  in  respect  to  the 
property  before.  She  would  not  have  solicitors.  Of  course,  I  intended 
to  take  her  to  a  solicitor. 

What  property  did  you  think  she  had  to  leave  on  that  date,  llth 
September? — 1  never  gave  it  a  thought. 

When  you  were  thinking  of  having  a  solicitor  to  come  and  draw  it? 
—Yes. 

Do  you  say,  then,  that  according  to  your  view  you  did  not  know 
that  she  had  any  property  at  all? — She  was  dealing  with  the  children's 
property. 

The  furniture  and  the  jewellery? — Yes,  that  is  what  she  was  con- 

180 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

cerned  about;   she  did  not  want  that  to  get  into  Hook's  hands,  because 
he  was  the  next-of-kin  to  the  sister,  Mrs.  Grant. 

The  jewellery  and  her  personal  belongings? — She  said  thati  the 
watch  was  the  boy's  father's  watch,  and  she  wanted  the  boy  to  have  that 
watch. 

Who  suggested  you  should  be  trustee  and  executor? — She  decided  I 
should  be.  She  wanted  me  to  look  after  everything;  she  had  taken 
me  into  her  confidence  from  the  beginning,  and,  naturally,  she  wanted  me 
to  attend  to  everything  in  the  end. 

You  were  in  her  confidence — she  looked  to  you  for  assistance  and 
protection,  did  she  not? — Yes,  there  was  no  particular  claim  regarding 
protection ;  I  mentioned  the  word  "  protection  "  when  the  Hooks  were 
living  in  the  house. 

What  I  mean  by  protection  is  that  you  were  in  her  complete  con- 
fidence?— I  was  the  owner  of  the  house,  and  I  would  naturally  protect 
my  tenant. 

Never  mind  Hook  for  the  moment.  You  were  completely  in  her 
confidence? — Not  completely  in  her  confidence,  no. 

We  will  say  you  were  in  her  confidence? — She  had  confidence  in  me, 
that  is  what  I  mean  ;  I  was  not  a  confidant  of  hers ;  she  never  told  me 
anything  about  herself,  or  affairs,  or  family. 

Of  course,  you  realised  that  she  was,  at  any  rate,  trusting  in  you? 
—To  see  that  the  children  got  this,  yes. 

As  far  as  I  understand  from  what  you  have  said,  her  whole  anxiety 
about  this  will  then  was  simply  as  to  this  furniture  and  the  small  amount 
of  jewellery  to  the  boy  and  girl,  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant? — Yes ;  her 
principal  anxiety  was  about  the  uncle  of  the  boy. 

What  about  her  money? — She  never  mentioned  it. 

But  you  were  making  her  will? — Yes,  but  I  tell  you  I  drew  it  up 
hurriedly.  I  never  expected  that  that  will  would  ever  be  used. 

Is  that  why  you  made  it? — I  made  it  to  satisfy  her.  She  wanted  a 
will,  and  I  told  her  to  have  a  solicitor. 

Is  that  why  you  wanted  it  witnessed  when  it  was  made? — It  had  to 
be  witnessed. 

In  order  to  be  a  legal  document? — Yes,  it  would  not  satisfy  her 
without. 

You  knew  she  was  worse,  did  you  not? — No,  I  did  not. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  do  not  want  my  learned  friend  to  mislead. 
I  think  the  doctor's  evidence  is  that  she  was  better. 

The  WITNESS — I  did  not  consider  her  any  different  to  any  other 
day  that  she  had  been  in  bed. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — The  doctor  has  told  us  that  he  came  to 
see  her  in  the  morning,  and  he  has  told  us  what  her  condition  was? — 
But  I  did  not  know  then ;  I  know  now  from  what  the  doctor  says. 

Did  you  inquire  at  all  as  to  what  her  condition  was? — No. 

At  least,  you  knew  then,  did  you  not,  that  supposing  she  happened 

to  die  before  her  will  was  made ? — She  was  a  woman  who  complained 

more  than  necessary  with  regard  to  her  ailments. 

She  does  not  seem,  according  to  her  view,  to  have  complained  as 
much  as  was  necessary? — I  do  not  follow  that. 

181 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

On  llth  September  she  was  ill,  was  she  not? — Yes. 

She  had  been  in  bed  from   1st  September? — 2nd  September. 

Taken  ill  on  1st  September,  and  remained  in  bed? — She  was  in  bed, 
at  any  rate,  as  far  as  I  know,  from  2nd  September  and  got  up  on  one 
occasion  and  went  out  of  the  room  right  along  the  landing  into  the  boy's 
room. 

Then  on  llth  September,  when  this  will  was  made,  how  long  con- 
sideration had  you  given  to  it? — I  had  not  given  a  great  amount  of  con- 
sideration to  it  at  all. 

You  have  told  us  that  she  asked  you  to  do  it  once  or  twice  beforet 
— Yes ;  well,  it  passed  my  mind  again  after ;  I  did  not  give  it  a  great 
amount  of  consideration;  I  always  felt  in  these  matters  she  ought  to 
have  independent  legal  advice. 

Had  you  some  forms  of  wills  in  your  possession? — 1  think  I  had  a 
torn  one.  (After  a  pause.)  No,  not  on  that  date. 

When  did  you  get  it? — At  a  later  date. 

When? — Some  time  after   the   death. 

How  long  after  the  death? — I  could  not  say;  I  bought  some  for  the 
purpose  of  having  my  own  will  drafted  up. 

Had  you  any  experience  in  drawing  wills? — No. 

Had  you  anything  to  help  you  to  draw  this  one — had  you  any  form 
before  you  when  you  drew  this  one? — No,  I  do  not  think  so;  no,  I  had 
not  a  form  before  me.  I  have  seen  the  printed  form  of  wills. 

This  is  a  document,  as  you  know,  which  is  drawn  up  in  a  legal 
form? — I  do  not  know  that  it  is  drawn  up  in  legal  form.  For  instance, 
I  was  informed  at  Somerset  House  that  the  attestation  clause  was  wrong 
or  something. 

At  any  rate  it  uses  legal  language? — It  uses  legal  terms  that  I  am 
acquainted  with. 

That  is  what  I  want  to  get  from  you,  legal  terms  that  you  are 
acquainted  with? — Yes,  I  have  seen  on  the  printed  will  forms. 

That  is  what  I  put  to  you;  you  had  seen  the  printed  will  forms,  and 
you  had  seen  the  kind  of  language,  at  any  rate,  that  had  to  be  in  the 
will,  and  you  draw  up,  "  This  is  the  last  will  and  testament  of  me,  Eliza 
Mary  Barrow,  63  Tollington  Park,  Finsbury  Park,  N.  I  hereby  revoke 
all  former  wills  and  codicils."  That  you  knew? — Yes. 

You  knew  the  expression,  did  you  not,  "  all  she  died  possessed  of  "  ? 
— I  used  that  expression. 

Not  in  the  will.  Do  you  not  know  that  you  did  not  use  it  in  the 
will?  Look  at  the  will.  In  the  will  you  speak  of  "household  furni- 
ture, jewellery,  and  other  personal  effects"? — Does  it  not  say  "inclusive 
of  "  something?  I  thought  "  all  she  died  possessed  of  "  was  in  the  will. 

Let  me  understand  what  you  mean  by  that.  Just  think  a  moment. 
Are  you  suggesting  that  you  thought  that  in  the  will  the  property  that 
was  to  be  passed  upon  her  death  would  include  cash? — I  did  not  know; 
I  never  gave  it  consideration.  It  escaped  my  mind  for  the  time  being. 
It  was  done  quite  hurriedly.  My  sister  had  only  just  come  from  Wol- 
verhampton,  and  I  was  busy  with  my  office  work  at  the  time,  and  I  did 
it  quite  hurriedly. 
182 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Let  me  put  to  you  the  suggestion  I  am  going  to  make  quite  plainly, 
so  that  you  may  understand  it  before  I  put  the  question  to  you.  Now, 
I  want  you  to  follow  it.  I  do  not  want  you  to  fall  into  any  trap,  so 
that  I  am  going  to  put  the  point  of  my  question  to  you  so  that  you 
may  just  follow? — Yes. 

In  the  will  again  and  again  you  speak  of  "all  my  personal  effects," 
"  all  my  personal  belongings,  furniture,  clothing,  and  jewellery,"  "  all 
my  personal  belongings  comprising  jewellery  and  furniture  and  cloth- 
ing," "  and  articles  of  furniture  and  clothing,"  "  any  article  of  jewellery," 
and  so  forth.  There  is  no  reference  to  anything  else  but  that.  In  your 
letter  of  14th  September,  1911  (the  copy  letter  which  is  in  question), 
you  write  to  Mr.  Vonderahe  this — "  I  must  also  inform  you  that  she 
made  a  will  on  the  llth  instant  leaving  all  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda 
and  Ernest  Grant"? — At  that  time  I  knew  what  she  had  died  possessed 
of.  That  is  a  later  date  after  I  had  gone  through  her  trunk  and  cash- 
box,  and  knew  what  she  was  possessed  of. 

This  is  written  three  days  after  the  will — on  14th  September? — 
Yes.  Well,  I  was  in  the  same  position  at  this  date.  I  had  gone  through 
the  trunk  then;  that  is  what  I  say. 

In  the  letter  of  21st  September  you  said — "  As  executor  to  the  will 
of  Miss  Barrow,  dated  llth  September,  1911,  I  hereby  certify  that  Miss 
Barrow  has  left  all  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant"? — 
Yes. 

That  is  the  same  expression  which  is  used  in  the  copy  letter  on  the 
mourning  paper  on  14th  September? — Yes. 

Did  you  mean  Mr.  Vonderahe  to  understand  by  that  expression  that 
she  died  possessed  of ? — All  that  I  knew  she  was  possessed  of. 

Including  cash? — Anything,  yes. 

When  you  made  that  will  on  llth  September,  did  you  think  she  had 
any  cash  at  all? — I  never  gave  it  any  thought.  If  I  had  known  that 
will  would  be  required  shortly,  perhaps  I  would  have  exercised  more 
care  in  the  drafting  up  of  it,  or  if  I  had  thought  that  she  was  going  to 
die  shortly  I  should  have  absolutely  insisted  upon  a  solicitor  being 
called  in.  I  never  anticipated  this. 

Let  me  read  the  whole  of  the  language  of  the  will  to  you — "  This  is 
the  last  will  and  testament  of  me,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  of  63  Tollington 
Park,  Finsbury  Park,  London  North.  I  hereby  revoke  all  former  wills 
and  codicils,  and  in  the  event  of  my  decease  I  give  and  bequeath  all  my 
household  furniture,  jewellery,  and  other  personal  effects  to  Hilda  Grant 
and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appoint  Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  of  63  Tolling- 
ton Park,  London  North,  my  sole  executor  of  this  my  will  " — "  sole 
executor  of  this  my  will ' '  ? — That  is  no  benefit  to  me ;  the  will  is  not  in 
my  favour.  The  will  is  for  the  boy  and  girl. 

"  To  hold  all  my  personal  belongings,  furniture,  clothing,  and 
jewellery,  in  trust  until  the  aforesaid  Hilda  Grant  and  Ernest  Grant 
become  of  age,  as  they  are  at  this  date  minors.  Then  for  him  to  dispose 
as  equally  as  possible  all  my  personal  belongings,  comprising  jewellery, 
furniture,  and  clothing  to  them,  or  to  sell  for  cash  any  article  of  furni- 

183 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

ture  or  clothing  either  of  them  do  not  desire,  and  equally  distribute  the 
cash  so  realised,  and  no  article  of  jewellery  must  be  sold.  Signed  this 
llth  day  of  September,  1911."  That  is  -witnessed  by  your  wife  and 
signed  by  Miss  Barrow,  and  witnessed  by  your  father.  That  is  the  docu- 
ment?— Yes. 

How  long  did  it  take  you  to  write  out  that  document? — A  very  few 
minutes. 

Do  you  mean  you  wrote  it  off  just  as  it  is  here,  out  of  your  head? 
—Yes. 

Without  looking  into  any  book? — Yes. 

Without  looking  at  any  form? — Otherwise  I  should  have  had  the 
attestation  clause  in. 

Using  the  language  that  is  there  merely  from  memory? — Yes. 

Memory  of  what  you  have  read  in  other  forms? — Yes. 

Had  you  studied  them  at  all? — No;  but  I  had  often  seen  them.  You 
read  them  in  the  Encyclopaedia  and  Post  Office  books. 

What? — I  have  seen  them  in  a  book. 

What  book? — I  could  not  say  what  kind  of  book. 

I  heard  you  say  something  about  an  Encyclopaedia? — Something  like 
that — some  kind  of  a  book  like  that. 

Like  the  Encyclopaedia  ? — Yes — how  to  draw  up  a  will. 

Have  you  looked  into  the  Encyclopaedia  at  all? — I  think  I  have  in 
days  gone  by. 

Do  you  possess  one? — I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not.  I  forget. 
I  think  I  have  got  something  like  that  in  the  office. 

Let  me  come  back  to  the  letter  which  I  am  putting  to  you,  dated 
14th  September,  1911.  "I  must  inform  you  that  she  made  a  will  on 
the  llth  instant  leaving  what  she  died  posesssed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest 
Grant."  As  I  understand  from  the  answer  you  have  given,  what  you  meant 
was  that  you  knew  then  what  money  there  was,  and  when  you  said,  "  What 
she  died  possessed  of,"  you  meant  to  include  everything? — I  used  terms 
that  I  had  not  given  sufficient  thought  to. 

You  see,  you  are  writing  to  her  relatives.  It  is  rather  important, 
is  it  not,  to  tell  the  relatives  how  she  left  her  property? — Yes,  but  I 
gave  them  an  exact  copy. 

That  is  not  an  answer? — I  am  not  perfect;  I  could  not  make  a  perfect 
will;  I  could  not  make  a  perfect  document. 

I  am  not  criticising  the  language  of  the  document? — If  we  could 
then  we  would  not  want  solicitors  to  draw  up  a  will.  It  is  a  home-made 
will.  It  was  never  intended  to  have  been  acted  upon,  not  that  one. 

What  do  you  mean  by  repeating  that? — It  was  my  intention  to  have 
taken  it  down  to  Mr.  Keeble  and  to  have  a  proper  will  drafted  up. 

This  was  on  the  llth? — Yes ;  I  did  not  know  she  was  going  to  die 
in  a  day  or  two  after. 

And  you  did  not  think  she  was  in  danger? — I  did  not.  There  is 
always  danger  where  there  is  illness,  certainly. 

Was  that  present  to  your  mind?^ — It  was  not  present  at  the  time; 
no,  I  did  not  give  sufficient  consideration  to  it. 
184 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Did  you  think  that  this  patient  was  in  danger  at  all  during  any  time 
of  her  illness? — The  doctor  never  gave  me  any  idea. 

That  is  not  an  answer  to  the  question? — Well,  I  had  no  idea  she  was 
likely  to  die. 

That  is  not  an  answer  to  the  question  I  am  putting  to  you.  Any 
time  during  that  illness  did  you  think  she  was  in  any  danger? — I 
did  not  think  she  would  die ;  I  thought  she  had  exaggerated  her  ailment. 

Then  do  you  mean  that  you  never  thought  there  was  any  danger  in  her 
illness? — I  have  said  there  is  always  a  danger  in  illness. 

Any  danger  of  that  illness  terminating  fatally? — I  did  not  consider 
it  would. 

You  never  gave  a  thought  to  it ;  is  that  what  you  mean  ? — No,  I  am 
a  busy  man  when  I  am  out;  I  had  other  things  to  occupy  my  attention. 

You  told  us  what  went  on  during  the  time  from  2nd  September  to 
the  night  of  the  13th,  which  I  will  come  to  directly.  During  all  that 
time  this  patient  had  been  rather  trying,  as  I  understood  you? — To  the 
wife.  She  always  preferred  the  wife  to  attend  to  her  instead  of  Maggie. 

Except  for  one  day  during  this  period  the  doctor  had  been  coming 
every  day? — Yes. 

You  were  finding  her  so  troublesome  that  you  were  talking  of  having 
her  sent  to  a  hospital? — I  wanted  her  to  go  to  the  hospital,  or  I  wanted 
her  to  have  a  nurse.  I  suggested  calling  a  relative  in,  Mrs.  Cognoni,  who 
had  written  to  her. 

At  the  time  you  saw  Mrs.  Vonderahe,  on  21st  September,  when  you 
gave  her  the  letter,  exhibit  3,  in  which  you  said,  "  She  has  simply  left 
furniture,  jewellery,  and  clothing,"  you  knew  she  had  drawn  out  £216  on 
19th  June,  1911?— Yes. 

That  is  not  three  months  before  her  death? — No. 

What  has  become  of  that? — I  do  not  know. 

Your  wife  was  with  her  when  it  was  drawn  out? — Yes. 

It  was  drawn  out  in  gold? — My  wife  said  so. 

It  wits  'Brought " to"  your  nouseT^Yes',"  and  she  said  she  knew  what 
to  do  with  it.  She  never  spoke  to  me  for  nearly  a  week  after,  because 
I  said  she  had  no  right  to  bring  so  much  gold  to  put  into  her  trunk. 

So  did  you  offer  to  take  care  of  it  for  her  and  lock  it  into  your  safe  ? — 
No,  I  said  there  were  plenty  of  good  banks  if  she  was  not  satisfied  with 
that  small  one  up  in  Upper  Street. 

Why  should  you  not  offer  to  lock  it  up  in  your  safe  for  her  ? — Because 
I  did  not  want  to  have  anything  at  all  to  do  with  it. 

Why  not? — There  was  no  necessity. 

Why  should  you  not  take  charge  of  her  money,  and  lock  it  up  in 
your  safe  for  her? — I  did  not  want  the  responsibility,  I  did  not  want 
such  a  responsibility. 

You  had  offered  to  do  that  long  before? — Only  temporarily,  while 
Hook  was  in  the  house.  I  said  if  she  would  count  it  out  in  my  presence 
she  could  hold  the  key,  and  I  would  give  her  a  receipt  for  the  amount  in 
the  box. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — In  that  connection  would  you  ask  him  whether 
he  expected  on  14th  September  to  find  the  money? 

185 


i 
I 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — When  you  went  to  look  on  14th  Septem- 
ber, after  her  death,  did  you  expect  to  find  that  £200  odd? — I  did  not 
know. 

Did  you  expect,  was  the  question  I  put  to  you? — Well,  I  thought  it 
might  be  there,  but  I  had  no  idea  as  to  what  she  had  done  with  it. 
She  said  she  knew  what  to  do  with  it.  I  did  not  mention  the  money 
to  her  again,  because  she  did  not  speak  to  me  for  over  a  week  because 
I  spoke  to  her  about  bringing  it  into  the  house,  because  it  was  only  a 
frail  trunk,  and  she  had  workmen  there  doing  repairs,  and  the  window 
cleaners,  and  it  was  not  safe  with  people  going  in  and  out  of  her  rooms 
like  that. 

Did  you  ever  say  one  word  to  either  Mrs.  Vonderahe  or  Mr.  Von- 
derahe,  when  you  saw  him,  about  this  £216  having  been  withdrawn? — 
No,  I  did  not. 

So  far  as  they  were  concerned,  until  it  was  given  in  evidence  that 
this  had  been  drawn  out  from  the  bank  after  it  was  traced  by  the  police, 
they  knew  nothing  whatever  of  it? — Not  from  me.  I  knew  nothing  of 
it  myself. 

Had  not  your  wife  told  you  on  the  very  day  it  was  drawn  out? — Yes, 
I  am  referring  to  what  had  become  of  it. 

During  the  whole  time  of  that  illness  did  you  think  that  money  was 
in  existence? — I  did  not  give  it  any  consideration;  my  mind  was  occupied 
with  other  things. 

Just  think? — My  business 

Just  think  what  you  say.  Your  mind,  according  to  what  you  have 
told  us,  was  much  agitated  by  her  putting  this  money  into  the  trunk  in 
her  room? — That  was  months  before. 

That  was  on  19th  June,   1911?— Yes. 

And  you  have  told  us  that  it  disturbed  you? — At  the  time,  yes,  but 
then  she  told  me  she  knew  what  to  do  with  it. 

Did  you  make  any  further  inquiry  from  her  about  it? — No,  she  said 
she  knew  what  to  do  with  it,  and  she  walked  out  of  the  room,  and  she 
treated  me  with  indifference  for  about  a  week  after. 

But  so  far  as  you  were  concerned? — I  treated  it  like  that.  (The 
witness  snapped  his  fingers.)  I  did  not  bother  anything  further  about  it. 

You  treated  the  £200  like  that.  (Snapping  his  fingers.)  Is  that 
your  explanation? — Yes. 

So  far  as  you  were  concerned,  then,  you  had  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
she  had  taken  the  money  up  and  done  what  she  said  she  was  going  to  do 
with  it? — I  did  not  know  what  she  was  going  to  do  with  it. 

Do  you  mean  that  you  did  not  know  whether  she  had  put  the  money 
into  the  box  or  not? — Yes,  I  believe  she  did  that  day. 

And  with  this  anxiety  of  yours  as  to  what  was  to  happen  to  the 
money  in  her  trunk  did  you  never  inquire  from  her  as  to  whether  it  was 
still  there? — She  did  not  give  me  any  satisfaction  on  the  occasion  when 
I  put  it  to  her,  and  when  she  said  she  would  know  what  to  do  with  it. 
well,  then  I  left  it  to  her.  You  must  remember  she  was  a  peculiar  person 
to  deal  with. 

As  far  as  you  were  concerned,   when  you  made  this  will  this  £200 
odd  might  have  been  in  her  trunk? — I  did  not  know;   I  never  considered 
1 86 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

it ;  it  never  entered  into  my  mind.  I  told  you  I  did  the  thing  hurriedly. 
I  did  not  give  sufficient  consideration  to  it. 

When  you  were  making  her  will,  and  taking  her  instructions,  as  I 
understand  you,  it  never  occurred  to  you  what  had  happened  to  that 
money  that  she  had  drawn  from  the  bank  ? — Her  instructions  only  amounted 
to  that  she  wanted  the  boy  and  girl  to  have  the  things  belonging  to  their 
parents  ;  that  was  all ;  that  was  the  whole  sum  and  substance  of  the 
instructions.  That  was  drafted  up,  and  she  read  it  for  herself. 

Did  you  not  give  some  sort  of  thought  of  what  was  to  happen  in 
case  she  died  and  this  will  had  to  take  effect? — I  did  not  take  that  into 
consideration. 

Did  you  hear  the  evidence  of  the  boy  Ernie  Grant? — Yes. 

Did  you  hear  what  he  said  about  her  counting  out  the  money  from 
the  cash  box? — About  Miss  Barrow? 

On  the  bed? — Yes,  I  heard  it.  She  would  count  out  the  £10  I  gave 
her,  you  know,  would  she  not?  Whenever  I  paid  her  £10  she  would 
count  that. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — If  you  thought  that  what  she  intended  to 
do  with  the  will  was  only  that  she  wanted  the  children,  and  not  the  Hooks, 
to  have  the  things  she  was  possessed  of — the  jewellery,  furniture,  and  so 
forth — and  if  you  had  thought  about  the  money  which  had  been  taken 
out  of  the  savings  bank,  you  must  have  known,  must  you  not,  that  that 
would  go  to  her  nearest  relations? — Yes,  if  I  had  given  that  amount  of 
consideration  I  should  certainly. 

And  so  you  might  have  said  to  the  Vonderahes,  "  Look  here,  she  has 
only  left  the  children  these  particular  things,  but  there  was  a  time  in 
June  when  she  had  over  £200  in  a  box,  and  it  is  not  there  now.  That 
would  have  come  to  you"? — Yes. 

So  you  were  not  surprised  perhaps  at  not  finding  it  there? — I  did  not 
mention  that  sum  of  money,  because  I  had  no  way  of  accounting  for  that 
sum  of  money ;  I  did  not  know  what  had  become  of  it,  you  see. 

Have  I  got  this  down  right,  and  is  this  a  fair  way  of  putting  it, 
"  I  did  not  mention  the  savings  bank  money  to  the  Vonderahes  after  her 
death  because  I  did  not  know  what  had  become  of  it  "  ? — That  is  not 
exactly  the  reason  why  I  did  not  mention  it;  it  never  came  to  my  mind 
at  that  time. 

Would  it  be  fair,  then,  to  add,  "  And  it  did  not  enter  my  mind  "? — 
That  is  an  honest  statement;  it  never  entered  my  mind  during  the  inter- 
view with  the  Vonderahes. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  had  had  a  good  deal  of  time  to  think 
about  what  had  happened  before  you  saw  Mr.  Vonderahe? — I  had  a  lot  of 
things  to  think  of.  My  mind  is  occupied  at  all  times. 

I  want  to  give  you  this  opportunity.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  my 
lord  and  the  jury  that  from  the  time  you  made  that  will  until  after  the 
death,  on  9th  October,  when  you  saw  Mr.  Vonderahe,  you  never  thought 
about  that  savings  bank  money  or  what  had  become  of  it? — It  had  puzzled 
me  as  to  what  had  become  of  it,  certainly. 

Why  did  you  not  tell  the  relatives? — Because  I  was  puzzled  to  know 
what  had  become  of  it. 

187 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Was  not  that  a  very  good  reason  why  you  should  tell  the  relatives? — 
At  the  time  4of  the  interview  it  never  entered  my  head. 

I  do  not  think  you  are  doing  yourself  justice  by  that  answer.  Just 
let  me  recall  to  you  what  you  have  said.  You  make  the  will  on  llth 
September;  she  dies  on  the  morning  of  the  14th;  you  have  inquiries  made 
by  the  Vonderahes  on  20th  September  and  21st  September.  You  have 
an  appointment  with  Mr.  Vonderahe,  the  male  relative,  the  husband,  to 
whom  you  are  going  to  give  an  account,  on  9th  October.  I  have  asked 
you  whether  it  had  occurred  to  you  during  the  whole  of  this  time  as  to 
what  had  become  of  this  money  which  had  been  drawn  on  the  19th  June? — 
It  had  certainly  occurred  to  me  as  to  what  had  become  of  it,  but,  as  I 
have  already  given  in  evidence,  I  did  not  consider  that  the  Vonderahe* 
were  entitled  to  the  full  details  without  he  showed  that  he  was  the  legal 
next-of-kin.  Even  now  he  proves  he  is  not. 

Let  me  point  out  the  position  to  you.  This  woman  dies  in  your 
house  very  suddenly,  according  to  your  view,  on  the  morning  of  14th 
September  ? — Yes . 

You   were   very   surprised   at  her    death? — Yes. 

You   were   shocked? — Yes. 

You   thought  she  was   sleeping  peacefully? — Yes. 

She  had  been  snoring  an  hour  and  a  half  or  two  hours  before,  accord- 
ing to  you? — Yes. 

And  with  your  experience  as  a  life  insurance  superintendent,  you 
thought  she  was  asleep? — I  have  no  experience  of  deathbeds. 

You  thought  she  was  sleeping? — Certainly,  yes;  she  is  only  the  second 
person  I  have  ever  seen  die. 

You  know,  I  suppose,  that  a  patient  may  collapse,  and  it  is  not 
always  possible  for  a  layman  to  tell  whether  a  patient  is  dead  or  not? — I 
did  not  think  so;  she  was  snoring. 

She  was  snoring  according  to  you — she  was  sleeping? — Yes. 

And  you  had  no  reason ? — And  my  wife  was  asleep  in  the  chair  by 

the  bedstead. 

And  you  were  smoking  your  pipe? — I  was  at  the  door. 

You  stood  by  the  door  for  some  time? — I  was  standing  at  the  door; 
it  is  only  a  step  to  the  door. 

This  was  the  only  night  you  stood  at  the  door? — Certainly. 

That  night,  from  the  13th  to  the  14th,  was  the  only  night  on  which 
you  had  stood  at  the  door  of  Miss  Barrow's  room? — That  I  had  stood  at 
the  door? 

I  mean  watched  at  the  door;  it  was  the  only  night  on  which  you 
waited  at  the  door  smoking  your  pipe? — I  never  smoked  my  pipe  at  her 
door  before. 

That  is  what  I  am  putting  to  you? — Yes. 

And  suddenly,  according  to  your  view,  instead  of  sleeping  peacefully, 
you  think  she  is  dead? — I  raised  her  eyelid. 

You  and  your  wife  were  the  only  persons  in  the  room  with  her  that 
night? — Yes,  my  wife  was  dozing  at  the  bedside  in  a  basket  chair. 

You  knew  you  were  her  executor  and  trustee? — I  had  not  given  that 
consideration. 
188 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

You  had  made  the  will  only  three  days  before? — Yes,  but  these  things 
were  not  going  through  my  mind  all  the  time.  I  was  not  thinking  of 
all  that  kind  of  thing. 

You  knew  she  had  relatives  living  close  by? — Yes,  such  as  they  were, 
according  to  her  statement. 

You  knew  that  in  ordinary  prudence  you  ought  to  take  care — to  have 
some  relatives  there  before  you  got  the  keys  and  looked  in  her  cash  box? — 
I  did  not  think  so.  She  had  already  spoken  about  what  she  thought  of 
her  relatives.  I  was  sure  she  would  not  have  it.  I  do  not  see  why  1 
should  if  she  did  not  want  her  relatives.  It  was  not  my  business  to  call 
them. 

I  will  tell  you  why  you  do  not  think  you  should.  You  are  an  experi- 
enced man  of  business? — No,  that  is  not  the  reason.  They  treated  my 
daughter  with  indifference  and  slammed  the  door  in  her  face. 

Listen  to  what  I  am  going  to  put  to  you.  I  said  you  are  an  experi- 
enced man  of  business? — In  one  direction,  yes. 

If  you  had  nothing  to  conceal,  what  I  suggest  to  you  is  that  the  first 
thing  you  would  do  would  be  to  get  some  independent  person  into  that 
house  before  you  proceeded  either  to  open  her  cash-box  and  before  you 
had  carried  her  out  of  the  house  to  be  buried? — There  was  an  independent 
person  in  the  room. 

Who  was  that? — Mrs.  Rutt,  the  charwoman,  who  laid  the  body  out. 

She  dies  on  the  morning  of  the  1 4th,  at  a  quarter  past  six  in  the 
morning? — Or  twenty  minutes  past. 

Now,  I  understand  from  what  you  have  told  us  you  had  not  sent  for 
any  doctor  during  the  whole  of  the  night  of  the  13th? — I  did  not  see  the 
necessity  of  calling  a  doctor  up. 

During  the  whole  of  the  night  of  the  13th? — During  the  whole  of 
that  night,  because  I  understood  it  was  only  a  repetition  of  what  had  been 
going  on. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Forgive  me  for  saying  so,  but  when  the 
boy  called  out  and  you  went  upstairs,  she  was  sitting  on  the  floor  and  the 
boy  was  supporting  her  body? — Yes,  but  she  got  out  of  bed  for  something. 

But  it  was  not  the  same ;  she  had  not  done  that  before  ? — No,  she 
had  never  done  that  before. 

I  only  want  to  remind  you? — I  considered  that  was  due  to  weakness. 

"  Getting  out  of  bed  I  consider  was  due  to  weakness  "1 — Yes,  natur- 
ally a  person  who  had  suffered  so  long  from  diarrhoea  would  be  weak. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — And  when  you  had  come  home  that  night 
your  wife  had  told  you  that  Miss  Barrow  said  she  was  dying? — Yes. 

Had  she  said  that  before? — She  often  had  said  she  would  not  live 
long,  and  she  often  said  she  wished  she  was  dead. 

Those  are  two  very  different  things  to  the  question  I  am  putting  to 
you? — Well,  she  never  said  "I  am  dying"  before;  no,  not  to  my  know- 
ledge. 

Here  was  a  woman  who  was  very  ill? — Yes.  I  quite  realised  that, 
but  I  did  not  realise  that  she  was  as  bad  as  she  proved  to  be. 

The  doctor  had  been  on  the  morning  of  the  13th? — Some  time  during 
the  day. 

189 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

On  the  morning  of  the  13th? — I  was  not  sure  of  the  time  he  had  been. 
I  thought  it  was  in  the  afternoon  he  had  been. 

I  think  you  said  he  came  in  the  morning,  and  your  impression  is 
that  you  were  in  bed  at  that  time? — I  thought  that  referred  to  when  my 
father  and  sister  went  to  the  White  City.  Anyway,  I  did  not  see  the 
doctor  when  he  came  on  the  13th. 

We  know  from  the  doctor  that  he  did  come  on  the  morning  of  the 
13th? — I  know  he  had  been. 

And  am  I  not  right  in  this,  that  from  the  time  when  he  came 
on  the  morning  of  the  13th,  no  doctor  ever  saw  that  woman  again  before 
she  was  put  in  her  coffin  and  buried? — No,  but  I  understood  he  was 
coming  again  that  morning;  he  had  been  coming  every  day. 

According  to  the  story  you  have  told  us,  death  occurred  suddenly  on 
that  morning.  She  stopped  breathing  suddenly;  she  died  suddenly? — 
Yes,  of  course. 

Do  you  wish  my  lord  and  the  jury  to  understand  that  there  was  no 
indication  to  you  that  that  woman  was  in  danger  of  dying  until  you  found 
she  was  dead? — I  do  not  think  so;  I  do  not  know  the  signs  of  death. 

All  the  more  reason,  I  suggest  to  you,  why  you  should  call  in  a 
doctor  immediately  you  thought  she  was  dead? — I  did.  I  went  for  the 
doctor  immediately.  I  was  at  his  house  before  seven  o'clock — from 
twenty  minutes  past  six. 

You  went  to  the  doctor  and  you  came  back  with  the  certificate? — 
I  did  not  know  he  was  going  to  give  me  a  certificate. 

Never  mind;  you  came  back  with  a  certificate? — Yes,   certainly. 

But  the  doctor  had  never  seen  her? — No;  but  I  was  not  to  know  he 
was  not  going  to  see  her.  I  naturally  expected  he  would  come  and  see 
her. 

Did  you  ask  him  to  come  and  see  her  ? — No ;  it  is  not  for  me  to  teach 
a  doctor  his  duty. 

Did  you  not  want,  for  your  own  satisfaction,  to  make  sure  the  woman 
was  dead? — I  had  no  desire.  I  had  no  idea  at  all  in  the  matter. 

Or  were  you  not  certain  in  your  own  mind,  although  you  had  no 
experience  of  it,  that  the  woman  was  dead? — She  was  dead. 

You  had  no  reason  to  doubt  it? — No,  because  her  mouth  dropped. 
My  wife  put  a  handkerchief  round  her  head,  and  I  lifted  her  eyelid  up 
and  it  did  not  go  down. 

How  long  after  she  had  ceased  snoring  was  that? — I  had  been  down 
to  see  how  the  baby  was,  and  I  came  up  in  the  room,  and  she  had  stopped 
breathing.  I  said  to  my  wife,  "Good  God,  she's  dead!  "  and  !  went 
for  the  doctor  immediately.  The  doctor  knew  when  he  was  there  last;  he 
knew  what  time  she  died.  I  told  him  what  time  she  died. 

Do  you  not  realise  the  position.  Let  me  put  it  to  you  once  more  in 
fairness  to  yourself.  The  doctor  had  been  on  the  morning  of  the  13th? — 
Yes. 

He  did  not  consider  she  was  then  in  a  critical  condition.  That  is 
what  he  has  told  us? — How  was  I  to  know? 

She  had  been  very  ill  during  that  night? — Yes. 
190 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

And  your  wife  had  told  you  when  you  came  home  after  twelve  o'clock 
that  night  that  she  said  she  was  dying? — Yes. 

You  do  not  send  for  a  doctor  during  the  whole  night  when,  un- 
doubtedly, on  your  story,  she  is  worse  than  she  has  been  before — that  is 
right,  is  it  not? — I  had  never  seen  her  on  the  other  nights;  I  had  only 
heard  her  calling. 

When  she  is  sufficiently  ill  for  you  to  think  it  right  to  remain  up 
all  night?— This  night? 

Yes? — That  is  because  my  wife  is  remaining  up.  My  opinion  of  Miss 
Barrow  was  that  she  wanted  Mrs.  Seddon  to  sit  with  her,  and  I  thought 
these  repeated  calls  were  on  that  account. 

You  had  never  had  such  a  night  as  this  before  with  her? — I  had  not. 
My  wife  had  been  up  two  or  three  times  on  other  nights. 

You  then  remain  outside  the  room  smoking? — I  was  not  exactly  out- 
side the  room;  I  was  at  the  door. 

The  door  was  open? — Yes. 

So  you  could  see  into  the  room? — I  had  the  door  open — yes,  the  door 
was  open,  and  I  could  see  into  the  room — the  door  was  wide  open. 

And  you  could  see  what  was  going  on  in  the  room? — I  am  not  quite 
sure  that  the  door  does  not  open  against  the  bed ;  I  think  it  does.  I  was 
standing  up  against  the  wall  by  the  side  of  the  door. 

Did  you  hear  what  was  going  on  in  the  room  ? — I  heard  the  snoring. 

As  I  understand,  you  told  us  you  heard  the  snoring  for  something  like 
one  and  a  half  hours  before  she  died? — Certainly. 

During  the  whole  of  that  time? — I  did  not  time  it,  you  know. 

No,  but  you  have  told  us  that  she  was  snoring  for  something  like 
an  hour  and  a  half  to  two  hours — you  said  that? — Yes. 

During  the  whole  of  that  time  you  were  standing  outside  that  door 
smoking  your  pipe,  and  your  wife  was  inside? — During  the  whole  of  that 
time  I  was  not  standing  outside  the  door ;  I  went  out  occasionally. 

To  see  the  baby? — Yes. 

And  you  came  back  again? — And  went  down  for  a  drink,  <fec.  I  did 
not  remain  absolutely  all  the  time;  my  wife  was  sitting  beside  the 
bedstead. 

As  I  understand  from  what  you  have  said,  there  was  no  thought  in 
your  mind  of  any  danger  of  her  dying  during  all  this  night? — I  did  not 
think  she  was  dying. 

Did  you  think  &he  was  in  danger? — I  did  not  think  so,  no  ;  I  did  not 
think  she  was  in  danger  of  dying,  no  more  than  the  ordinary  danger. 

No  more  than  what? — The  ordinary  danger  with  anybody  that  ia  ill; 
I  did  not  .think  she  was  going  to  expire  then. 

Do  you  mean  the  danger  of  a  collapse  from  exhaustion? — I  did  not 
think  of  that. 

Weakness? — Yes,  but  I  did  not  think  she  would  pass  away  like  that. 

You  go  to  the  undertakers  at  11.30  on  that  morning  the  14th? — I 
could  not  swear  to  the  time. 

How  far  is  Evershot  Road  from  your  house  ? — Not  very  far. 

Is  it  about  200  yards? — It  might  be;  it  is  not  far,  anyway;  it  is 
a  few  minutes. 

191 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Is  that  where  you  thought  the  Vonderahes  lived  at  that  time? — Yes. 

How  far  off  did  Dr.  Paul  live? — Ten  minutes'  walk  or  quarter  of  an 
hour. 

Was  there  not  a  doctor  almost  opposite  your  house? — I  think  there 
is  a  doctor  close  to. 

And  was  your  daughter  Maggie  in  the  house? — In  bed. 

The  servant? — In  bed. 

And  at  this  time  your  father? — Yes,  he  was  in  bed;  they  were  all 
in  bed. 

Your  two  sons? — They  were  in  bed. 

And  another  daughter? — A  little  girl,  seven  or  eight,  and  the  baby. 

It  never  occurred  to  you  between  the  death  of  this  lady  at  a  quarter- 
past  six  in  the  morning  until  you  went  to  the  undertakers  to  send  some 
one  round  to  Evershot  Road  to  the  Vonderahes? — I  did  not;  but  Miss 
Barrow  had  already  got  my  daughter  on  a  previous  occasion  to  call  at  the 
Vonderahes  at  Evershot  Road  to  see  if  there  were  any  letters  for  her,  and 
my  daughter  had  the  door  glammed  in  her  face,  and  was  treated  very 
abruptly,  and  I  told  my  daughter  not  to  go  there  any  more,  and  I  told 
Miss  Barrow  never  to  send  her  to  that  house  any  more. 

Is  that  your  explanation  of  why  you  did  not  send  round  to  the  Von- 
derahes on  this  morning? — No,  it  was  my  intention  to  write  to  them. 

The  letter  which  you  thought  was  of  such  importance  that  you  copied 
it? — I  generally  do  copy  letters;  that  is  why  I  have  got  carbon  paper;  I 
used  to  keep  a  copy-press. 

Why  should  not  your  father,  or  your  wife,  or  your  sons,  or  some  one 
else  have  gone  round  to  the  Vonderahes  between  6.15  and  11.30  in  the 
morning  when  you  went  to  the  undertakers? — Because  it  was  my  intention 
for  to  write  the  letter,  and  I  would  not  send  one  of  my  family  round  to 
their  house  to  be  insulted  by  them,  and  they  had  had  enough  trouble 
about  Miss  Barrow  all  the  time  she  lived  there,  and  she  herself  said  she 
did  not  want  any  of  the  relatives  called  in. 

Did  you  then  see  Mr.  Nodes,  and  was  the  result  of  your  interview 
with  him  that  the  burial  was  to  be  in  a  public  grave? — At  Finchley. 

For  which  you  were  to  be  charged  £4? — Yes. 

And  of  this  £4  you  were  to  have  12s.  6d.  commission? — He  men- 
tioned that  on  the  way  in  the  trap,  as  a  business  suggestion. 

So  you  were  to  pay  £3  7s.  6d.  ? — And  he  said  his  son  would  bring 
with  him  a  receipt  for  £4. 

So  you  could  put  it  into  your  accounts  as  executor  and  trustee  as  a 
sum  of  £4  paid? — I  do  not  think  he  had  that  idea  in  his  head. 

You  had? — At  the  time,  no  I  had  not. 

But  you  did  it? — I  know  I  did  it. 

You  have  given  an  account  of  how  you  have  spent  that  £10  which 
was  found  on  her  death  when  you  came  to  look  for  the  cash? — I  do  not 
know  whether  I  drew  that  account  up  for  anybody  especially. 

There  is  an  account? — There  is  an  account  I  kept  of  the  spendings 
of  money,  which  came  to  over  £11. 

In  that  account  you  include  the  funeral,  £4? — I  put  down  the  £4 
funeral. 

Which  you  had  not,  in  fact,  paid? — Well,  I  had  had  the  allowance 
192 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

that  he  allowed  me  as  a  commission.  If  an  agent  for  a  Singer's  eewing 
machine  buys  one  himself  he  gets  a  commission. 

Were  you  in  the  habit  of  getting  a  commission  from  Nodes? — I  was 
under  commission  if  I  introduced  him  business,  and  I  gave  my  agents  his 
cards. 

Their  business  would  be  to  introduce  him ? — I  do  not  know  that 

my  agents  introduced  him. 

Did  you  get  any  commission  for  the  business  that  was  introduced? — 
No. 

Through  your  agents? — No,  I  had  none. 

Was  this  the  first  commission  transaction  you  had  done  with  him? 
A  moment  ago  you  said  you  were  in  the  habit  of  getting  commissions? — 
Did  I  ?  If  I  did,  I  withdraw  it.  I  had  no  intention  of  saying  that.  I 
said  if  an  agent  was  on  commission  for  to  sell  sewing  machines, 
and  he  bought  one  himself,  he  would  have  the  commission  on 
it,  or  a  piano.  What  I  did  say  was  that  I  was  under  commission  with 
Nodes  if  I  introduced  him  business,  or  from  my  agents,  and  I  gave  them 
cards. 

Did  you  not  think  it  right  before  this  lady  was  buried  in  a  publio 
grave  that  you  should  communicate  with  the  relatives? — I  did  communi- 
cate with  the  relatives. 

That  you  should  get  some  communication  from  the  relatives? — No, 
I  considered  that  they  treated  the  thing  as  indifferent  as  what  they 
treated  her  throughout. 

Did  you  realise  that  you  had  made  this  arrangement  about  the  public 
grave,  on  your  own  showing,  before  you  had  written  the  letter  at  all? — Yes, 
a  temporary  arrangement,  subject  to  any  alteration  they  would  like  to 
make. 

Let  me  put  something  else  to  you  about  that.      In  the  letter  that  was 

written ? — I  expected  them  to  call  and  see  me  that  night,  Thursday, 

because  they  would  get  the  letter  posted  by  the  5  o'clock  post  before  9 
or  9.30  at  night. 

The  funeral  was  to  be ? — I   think  Nodes  said  about   1  or   2   on 

Saturday.  We  waited  a  little  time  at  home  to  see  whether  they  turned 
up ;  I  think  we  were  late ;  we  were  half  an  hour  later  than  he  arranged 
by  waiting. 

Mr.  Nodes  has  told  us  you  said  you  had  others  to  consult? — Yes. 

There  was  somebody  to  consult  in  the  matter? — Yes. 

Did  you  mean  by  that,  the  Vonderahes? — I  meant  the  wife  and  my 
father. 

This  is  what  he  says,  "  Mr.  Seddon  said,  '  I  will  let  you  know  when  I 
let  you  know  about  the  funeral.'  Q. — Did  he  say  why  he  could  not  let 
you  know  the  day  of  the  funeral  then?  A, — He  said  he  had  others  to 
consult;  there  was  somebody  else  to  consult  on  the  matter"? — I  did  not 
say  that  in  those  words ;  it  was  something  to  that  effect ;  I  said  I  would 
see  how  the  arrangement  suited. 

Was  not  that  with  the  object  of  consulting  the  relatives? — No. 

Did  you  not  mean  to  consult  the  relatives  about  the  funeral  ? — I  did  not 
intend  to  consult  personally  the  relatives. 

N  I93 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Whether  you  intended  personally  to  go  there  or  not,  did  you  not 
intend  to  consult  them  before  the  funeral? — Personally,  no. 

What  do  you  mean  by  "personally"?  Do  you  mean  going  your- 
self?— I  -wrote  to  them.  They  could  take  what  steps  they  liked  on  that, 
and,  if  they  did  not  turn  up 

Your  house  was  within,  as  you  thought,  some  200  yards  of  theirs? — 
My  house  was  just  as  near  to  them  as  theirs  to  mine  if  they  wanted  to 
come.  They  knew  she  was  ill. 

But  you  did  not,  as  I  understand,  send  round  to  that  house  or  to 
their  other  house? — No,  and  they  never  came  near  me.  It  cuts  both 
ways ;  they  never  came  near.  They  said  they  met  her  at  the  end  of 
August,  and  they  knew  she  was  ill. 

Do  you  say  they  knew  she  was  ill? — Yes. 

Who  knew  she  was  ill? — Mr.  and  Mrs.  Vonderahe  ;  they  told  me  at  the 
interview ;  they  said  they  had  met  her. 

Met  her  in  the  street? — Yes. 

When  she  was  under  Dr.  Paul,  do  you  mean? — I  suppose  so. 

In  the  month  of  August,  when  she  was  being  treated  for  a  bilious 
attack,  and  later  on  for  asthma? — The  end  of  August. 

Later  on  is  the  period  when  Dr.  Paul  has  told  us? — And  the  boy 
going  to  the  same  school  as  the  two  Vonderahe  boys  they  would  know 
that  Miss  Barrow  was  ill  in  bed ;  he  could  tell  the  Vonderahe  boys.  They 
are  in  the  same  school,  the  two  boys  and  Ernie  Grant,  and  I  fail  to  see 
how  they  can  say  they  had  no  knowledge. 

The  Court  then    adjourned. 


Seventh   Day — Monday,   nth   March,   1912. 
The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My  lord,  there  is  one  matter  I  should  like 
to  mention  before  I  go  on  with  the  examination.  Your  lordship  will 
remember  there  was  some  cross-examination  of  a  somewhat  intricate 
scientific  detail  by  my  learned  friend  as  to  the  effect  on  the  distal  ends 
of  the  hair,  and  Dr.  Willcox  made  one  statement  as  to  which  he  said  he 
was  not  quite  clear.  Your  lordship  will  remember  that  he  said  that  he 
thought  that  the  soaking  of  the  hair  in  the  blood  fluid  would  account 
for  what  he  found  in  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair.  He  has  made  an 
experiment  with  it  in  order  to  enable  him  to  put  this  matter  before  the 
Court  quite  cle'arly,  and  what  I  desire  to  do  is  to  let  him  tell  the  Court, 
at  a  time  which  would  be  convenient,  the  result  of  it,  and  I  also  propose, 
having  now  ascertained  that  that  is  the  fact,  to  give  my  friend  an 
opportunity  and  the  gentleman  who  was  present,  and  who  is  concerned 
in  this  matter,  an  opportunity  of  witnessing  the  experiment  so  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  about  it.  The  whole  point  of  the  thing  is  this, 
194 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

that  Dr.  Willoox  said,  taking  the  blood  fluid  which  belonged  to  the  body, 
which  he  found,  as  he  has  already  stated,  and  taking  some  hair  which 
was  free  from  arsenic,  hair  which  of  course  did  not  belong  to  her,  and 
soaking  that  hair  in  the  blood  fluid  he  found  there  in  the  distal  ends 
that  there  was  a  slight  quantity  of  arsenic  such  as  he  actually  found  in 
the  hair  of  Miss  Barrow  which  had  been  soaked  in  the  blood  fluid.  That 
is  the  whole  point. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — My  lord,  without  making  any  further  comment, 
that  cannot  apply  to  the  hair  which  was  examined,  which  was  cut  oft 
by  the  undertaker. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  agree  with  my  friend  in  that.  Of  course, 
he  will  remember  the  only  point  of  that  was  that  that  hair  which  was 
examined  was  mixed  hair. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Now  that  has  been  suggested  I  am  sure  you 
will  agree  with  this,  if  you  have  a  written  proof  of  what  Dr.  Willoox  is 
going  to  say,   if  you  give  that  to  your  learned  friend  now,  he  can  examine 
it,  and  this  gentleman  and  Dr.  Willcox  can  make  the  experiment  together. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  already  done  that. 

FREDERICK  HENRY  SEDDON  (prisoner),  further  cross-examined  by  the 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  was  asking  you,  when  the  Court  rose  on  Saturday, 
about  what  had  happened  on  the  night  of  the  13th  and  early  in  the 
morning  of  the  14th.  When  you  were  called  upstairs  for  the  fourth  time 
that  night,  it  was  because  of  Ernie  Grant  having  cried  out  from  the  top 
of  the  stairs  that  Chickie  was  out  of  bed? — Yes. 

And  did  you  then  go  up  and  find  the  boy  very  terrified? — Certainly. 
He  was  supporting  her. 

And  in  an  expression  of  your  own,  you  say  he  was  supporting  her? 
— She  was  sitting  in  an  upright  position,  and  he  had  his  hands  under 
her  arms. 

Did  he  tell  you  that  she  had  said,  "  I  am  going  "1 — No. 

Did  you  hear  her  say  anything  like  that? — No,  I  could  not  hear 
— I  was  not  there. 

But  you  came  up  and  found  her  on  the  floor? — She  did  not  say  it 
again. 

I  am  asking  whether  she  did? — No — she  never  spoke.  I  asked  her 
what  she  was  doing  out  of  bed — she  never  answered. 

You  saw  then  that  she  was  very  ill,  did  you  not? — Apparently.  I 
thought  she  was  exaggerating  for  to  have  Mrs.  Seddon  there,  do  you 
see.  I  thought  she  was  exaggerating  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  Mrs. 
Seddon  there.  She  wanted  Mrs.  Seddon  all  night,  you  see,  the  same  as 
on  former  occasions. 

This  had  never  happened  on  a  former  occasion? — I  had  not  been  up 
on  a  former  occasion. 

Did  you  ever  hear  that  this  had  happened  on  a  former  occasion ; 
sitting  on  the  floor  and  the  boy  calling  out? — No,  I  heard  on  a  former 
occasion  she  had  got  out  of  bed  and  gone  into  another  room.  I  knew 
she  used  to  get  out  of  bed. 

Was  it  after  that  that  you  remained  upstairs  outside  the  door? — 
Off  and  on,  yes. 

195 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Reading  the  paper  ? — Occasionally  ;  I  could  not  see  very  well  to  read 
the  paper. 

Smoking  your  pipe? — Yes. 

Occasionally  going  downstairs  either  to  see  the  baby  or  to  have  a 
drink? — Yes. 

Now,  she  was  sleeping  quite  peacefully,  as  you  have  told  us,  for  some 
time? — Yes,  I  should  say  for  about  an  hour  and  a  half,  or  perhaps 
two  hours. 

Why  did  you  not  go  to  bed  then? — To  keep  Mrs.  Seddon  company; 
it  was  not  very  thoughtful  of  me  to  leave  my  wife  alone.  I  could  not 
sleep. 

Had  your  wife  been  up  with  her  on  the  previous  night? — Not  sitting 
up  with  her.  She  had  gone  up  attending  to  her  almost  every  night. 

Why  should  you  not  leave  your  wife  sitting  in  the  room  if  Miss 
Barrow  was  sleeping  peacefully? — It  was  early  in  the  morning — it  was 
about  four  o'clock  in  the  morning.  We  had  been  up  best  part  of  the 
night,  so  I  said,  "  Well,  if  you  are  going  to  sit  up  with  her,  I  must 
arrange  to-morrow  for  her  to  go  to  the  hospital,  for  we  cannot  have  another 
night  like  this/'  and  I  said,  "  I  will  sit  up  with  you." 

She  was  dozing  in  a  chair  herself? — Yes. 

Why  did  you  want  to  stay  up  outside  the  door  when  your  wife  was 
dozing  and  the  patient  was  sleeping  peacefully? — Because  my  sleep  was 
broken. 

Was  it  not  because  you  were  afraid  the  end  was  coming  and  you 
didn't  want  your  wife  to  be  alone? — Certainly  not.  My  sleep  was  broken 
being  up  the  best  part  of  the  night  off  and  on,  backwards  and  forwards. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  your  object  in  waiting  there  was  to  be  there 
with  your  wife  when  the  end,  which  you  were  expecting,  came? — I  did 
not  expect  the  end,  and  that  was  not  my  reason  for  remaining. 

Did  you  yourself  give  her  brandy  twice  that  night? — No,  once.  I 
didn't  know  there  was  brandy  in  the  house.  She  asked  for  brandy.  I 
said,  "You  cannot  get  brandy  at  this  time  in  the  morning;  everywhere 
is  closed."  My  wife  says,  "  There  is  a  drop  there  in  the  bottle." 

When  your  wife  said  there  was  a  drop  in  the  bottle,  where  was  the 
bottle  then? — It  was  on  the  top  of  the  commode — it  was  a  high  commode, 
with  steps  to  it. 

In  her  room? — At  the  side  of  the  bed,  yes,  between  the  door  and 
her  bed. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — How  large  was  the  bottle? — It  was  only 
a  bottle  that  would  hold  an  ordinary  noggin.  What  would  hold  a 
shilling's  worth  of  whisky,  or  something  like  that. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — My  friend  will  prove  this  plan  of  Miss 
Barrow's  room  directly.  I  see  the  way  the  door  opens  there? — I  believe 
it  opened  to  the  bed. 

Yes.  Do  you  suggest  that  you  did  not  see  the  bed?  You  would 
see  the  bed  as  the  door  opened? — I  explained  in  my  former  evidence,  or 
in  cross-examination,  that  I  thought  the  door  opened  towards  the  bed, 
because  I  did  not  see  her  when  I  was  standing  at  the  door  smoking — I 
heard  her  snoring. 

When  you  were  standing  at  the  door  and  the  door  was  open,  as  you 

196 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

have  told  us,  you  oould  see  the  bed? — I  could  see  half  of  it.  1  could 
not  see  her  head. 

Where  was  your  wife  sitting? — Just  at  the  foot  of  the  bed,  opposite 
the  door,  facing  me. 

Could  you  see  her? — Oh,   yes,   facing  me. 

And  where  was  the  commode  that  you  are  speaking  of? — Behind  the 
door. 

Between  the  bed  and  the  door? — Yes,  if  the  door  opens  towards  the 
bed ;  I  am  not  quite  clear  on  the  point. 

This  plan  shows  it — there  is  no  doubt  about  it? — Yes. 

The  door  opens  away  from  the  bed.  So  that  the  commode  would 
be  quite  clearly  in  view  between  the  opening  of  the  door  and  the  bed. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Does  this  plan  show  where  your  wife 
was  sitting  at  the  bottom  of  the  bed? — No,  the  plan  does  not  show 
where  my  wife  was  sitting. 

By  the  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — It  shows  a  chair? — Yes,  but  the  chair 
was  brought  here  to  the  foot  of  the  bed.  (Marks  on  plan.) 

Now  would  you  just  follow  what  I  am  going  to  put  to  you?  This  is 
what  Mrs.  Vonderahe  says  you  told  her  on  the  21st  September — this  is 
Mrs.  Vonderahe's  deposition — "  His  wife  was  sent  out,  so  he  had  to  go 
to  her  himself  "  ;  this  is  what  she  says  you  said  to  her? — Yes. 

"  And  he  asked  her  what  she  wanted,  and  he  gave  her  some  brandy," 
that  is,  you,  according  to  her  statement,  giving  Miss  Barrow  some  brandy? 
—Yes. 

"  And  he  said  they  would  be  retiring  to  rest,  and  he  hoped  that  she 
would  not  trouble  them  again."  Is  that  right? — Yes. 

Did  you  go  on  to  say  that  the  boy  came  down  again  after  that? 
That  is  true,  is  it  not — after  you  had  given  her  some  brandy? — Yes. 

This  is  what  Mrs.  Vonderahe  says  you  told  her? — Yes,  the  boy  called 
again. 

And  did  you  then  go  up  and  give  her  some  more  brandy? — No,  sir. 

Listen.  This  is  what  Mrs.  Vonderahe  says — "The  boy  came  down 
again  after  that,  and  he  went  up  again  and  gave  her  some  more  brandy  "? 
— Certainly  not. 

And  that  you  had  left  some  brandy  in  the  bottle? — Yes.  I  divided 
what  there  was — there  was  very  little. 

And  that  had  gone  by  the  morning — by  the  next  morning? — It  had 
gone  by  the  time  we  came  up  to  lift  her  off  the  floor  into  the  bed. 

It  is  not  quite  the  same  thing,  you  know.  This  is  what  Mrs. 
Vonderahe  says  that  you  said  to  her? — But  I  did  not  say  that.  I  did 
not  say  it  had  gone  in  the  morning. 

You  see  the  significance  of  it,  do  you  not? — Yes,  but  I  never  said 
that.  I  say  it  was  gone  when  we  went  upstairs  for  to  lift  her  into  the 
bed. 

Did  you  ever  tell  Mrs.  Vonderahe  that  you  had  stood  outside  the 
door  reading  a  paper  and  smoking  your  pipe  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  or 
two  hours,  before  this  lady  died? — No,  I  did  not. 

Why  not? — I  never  thought  of  it.  I  said,  "  We  have  been  up  all 
night." 

You  saw  Mr.  Vonderahe  on  9th  October.  Did  you  ever  tell  him 

197 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

that? — We  did  not  go  into  the  conversation,  as  far  as  I  can  recollect. 
He  was  dealing  with  her  properties.  He  was  not  concerned  with  about 
how  she  died,  or  the  night  she  died. 

Now,  in  the  morning,  when  you  returned  from  the  doctor's,  which 
is  somewhere  between  eight  and  half-past  eight  on  the  14th  according 
to  what  you  have  told  us,  had  Mrs.  Rutt  been  sent  for? — I  believe  BO; 
she  was  there.  My  wife  said  she  had  sent  for  her. 

And  had  she  arrived  there  just  about  the  time  that  you  came  in, 
or  was  it  afterwards? — I  think  she  was  already  there. 

Just  a  little  before? — As  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me. 

Did  you  then,  according  to  your  statement,  set  to  work  to  search  for 
money? — I  opened  the  trunk. 

Was  it  for  the  purpose  of  searching  for  money? — I  opened  the  trunk 
to  see  what  was  in  it. 

You  had  got  the  keys  from  your  wife? — Yes. 

You  then  found  the  cash  box  in  the  trunk? — Yes. 

The  cash  box  was  locked? — Yes. 

You  proceeded  to  open  it  with  a  key? — Yes,  there  was  a  bunch  of  keys. 

And  when  it  was  opened,  according  to  your  statement,  you  found 
£4  10s.  in  it?— Yes. 

That  was  a  matter  of  great  surprise  to  you,  was  it  not? — Yes. 

Quite  a  shock? — Well,  it  was  a  surprise,  a  considerable  surprise. 

Did  you  think  anybody  had  taken  her  money  out  of  her  cash  box 
when  you  found  only  £4  10s.  there? — I  did  not  know.  She  had  workmen 
coming  into  the  room  off  and  on.  She  had  a  window-cleaner. 

When  was  the  last  time  she  had  had  workmen  in  the  room  before 
she  was  taken  ill? — I  could  not  say. 

Did  you  make  any  further  search  then? — I  went  right  through  the 
trunk. 

How  long  did  it  take  you? — I  could  not  say.  It  might  have  taken 
a  quarter  of  an  hour  or  twenty  minutes.  I  am  referring  to  the  trunk ; 
going  right  through  the  trunk.  Of  course,  I  felt  everything.  We 
looked  all  through  the  drawers. 

You  mean  the  drawers  of  the  chest? — The  chest  of  drawers,  of  course. 

You  looked  everywhere  where  you  thought  you  could  find  money? — 
Yes ;  I  believe  the  wife  felt  the  bed  all  over. 

And  the  bag? — No. 

But  the  bag  was  hanging  on  the  bed? — Yes. 

As  I  understand  you,  you  did  not  open  that? — I  did  not  open  the  bag. 

But  you  opened  the  drawers  and  found  nothing  in  them? — Yes. 

The  total  result,  then,  of  your  search  that  morning  was  £4  10s.? — 
£4  10s. 

Was  it  not  perfectly  plain  to  you  that  there  must  "be  more  money, 
unless  somebody  had  taken  it,  than  £4  10s.  when  you  were  looking? — I 
did  not  understand  it. 

That  is  the  full  amount  of  money  which  you  had  found  up  to  the 
time  of  your  going  to  see  Nodes  at  11.30? — Yes. 

Did  you  ever  think  any  of  her  money  had  been  stolen? — I  don't 
know  what  she  had  done  with  her  money ;  she  was  such  a  peculiar  woman 

198 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

when  you  mentioned  these  matters  to  her  that  I  did  not  go  into  details 
with  her •  she  had  a  funny  temper. 

Her  funny  temper  could  not  show  itself  after  death? — No,  but  you 
are  asking  me  what  had  become  of  her  money  during  life. 

No,  I  am  not.  I  am  asking  you  now  what  had  become  of  her  money 
after  death? — It  was  not  there. 

That  struck  you,  as  you  have  told  us,  as  a  very  remarkable  thing, 
did  it  not? — Certainly,  because  I  had  paid  her  £10  on  the  2nd  of 
September. 

And  you  know  perfectly  well  that  she  could  not  have  been  out  to 
spend  it? — She  had  not  been  out  to  my  knowledge. 

So  that,  when  you  found  £4  10s.,  at  the  very  least  you  ought  to  have 
found  the  £10  which  you  had  paid  her  in  gold  on  2nd  September? — Of 
course  I  didn't  know  what  amount  had  been  spent  during  the  twelve 
or  fourteen  days  when  she  was  ill,  because  she  had  been  sending  out. 

Did  you  ask  your  wife  that  morning  about  the  money  ? — Yes ;  she 
said  she  had  been  giving  her  money  for  what  she  required. 

Why  did  you  not  ask  your  wife  that? — I  asked  her  if  she  had  any 
idea  what  had  become 

When? — The  morning  while  we  were  searching  for  it. 

Between  8  and  11.30? — I  asked  her  where  she  had  been  keeping  her 
money  for  to  purchase  what  was  required  for  her.  She  said  she  had  it  in 
a  purse  under  her  pillow. 

Did  you  look  for  the  purse? — We  found  the  purse  with  3d.  in  it. 

Where? — Under  her  pillow. 

You  found  the  purse  with  3d.  in  it,  and  except  for  the  money  that 
you  had  paid  her  on  2nd  September  you  found  nothing  else? — 3d.  in 
copper  in  her  purse. 

Yes — except  that  3d.  in  copper  and  the  £10  which  you  paid  her  on 
the  2nd  September  you  found  nothing  else? — No. 

At  any  time? — No. 

Did  you  think  when  you  had  made  your  very  thorough  search  during 
the  whole  of  that  day  that  somebody  had  been  stealing  her  money? — I 
didn't  know  what  she  had  been  doing  with  it. 

Did  it  cross  your  mind  that  somebody  may  have  stolen  it? — No,  I 
don't  think  evil  of  people  like  that;  I  am  not  so  ready  to  think  evil  of 
people. 

Not  even  of  the  workmen  or  the  window-cleaners  who  came  into  her 
room? — I  have  nothing  to  support  the  idea  that  they  had. 

Did  you  not  think  that  it  was  a  matter  in  respect  of  which  some 
inquiry  must  be  made? — No. 

Do  you  realise  how  much  money,  according  to  your  statement,  there 
must  have  been  in  gold  of  hers  during  the  eight  months  of  the  year  before 
her  death? — Yes. 

What  do  you  make  it? — £165,  less  anything  she  had  spent. 

That  is  to  account  for  the  notes? — Yes. 

Notes  are  easily  traceable,  are  they  not? — Oh,  yes. 

Gold  is  not,  is  it? — I  have  not  given  that  a  thought. 

When  you  say  the  gold,  are  you  speaking  of  the  £165  that  was 

199 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

changed  from  notes,  according  to  your  statement,  into  gold? — But  you 
are  suggesting  I  had  her  money. 

Do  you  say  that  the  £165  which  had  been  traced  into  thirty-three 
notes ? — The  notes  that  had  been  cashed? 

Yes? — Well,  I  don't  know  what  she  had  done  with  it. 

But,  according  to  the  statement  you  have  just  given,  that  was  turned 
into  gold? — Yes,  Mrs.  Seddon  said  she  gave  them  her  to  change;  it 
might  have  been  turned  into  silver  and  gold. 

Do  you  know  what  has  become  of  that  money? — No. 

Did  it  strike  you  as  odd  that  none  of  that  money  was  found? — I 
never  thought  of  it. 

Or  the  money  which  you  yourself  had  given  her  in  gold  in  change  for 
£5  notes? — Yes,  and  of  the  £10  I  had  paid  her. 

Yes,  I  am  not  forgetting  the  £10.  You  yourself,  according  to  your 
statement,  had  changed  £5  notes  which  she  had  paid  you  with;  you  had 
given  her  back  £4  8s.  each  time? — Yes,  that  would  be  before  the  January 
previous. 

That  is  your  statement? — Yes,  that  is  all  I  knew  about  her  notes,  and 
one  of  the  notes  Mrs.  Seddon  had  cashed  for  her,  after  she  had  been  out 
herself,  and  nobody  would  change  it  for  her. 

During  this  period — I  am  dealing  only  with  1911 — according  to  your 
statement,  you  paid  her  eight  times  £10  in  gold? — Nine  times — £91  I 
paid  her. 

Nine  times  if  you  include  the  2nd  September? — Yes. 

Up  to  the  2nd  September  the  amount  you  had  paid  was  £91? — £91  I 
paid  up  to  October. 

£91  in  gold.  I  will  leave  out  altogether  for  the  moment  what 
happened  in  1910,  the  three  months  of  October,  November,  and 
December,  and  I  will  leave  out  the  notes  which  you  say  you  cashed  for  her 
in  that  year.  I  am  going  to  deal  only  with  1911.  Do  you  know  that 
£105  in  notes  was  dealt  with  by  your  wife? — I  have  not  calculated  how 
much  had  been  dealt  with  by  my  wife. 

That  is  proved  already  in  this  case? — Yes — twenty-seven. 

Yes,  but  I  am  dealing  only  with  1911.  It  is  twenty-one  in  1911. 
Six  of  them  were  dealt  with  by  her  in  1910,  and  six  by  you? — Yes. 

That  leaves  twenty-one  which  are  proved  to  have  been  dealt  with  in 
each  month  of  1911,  making  £105.  You  follow  that? — Yes. 

Then  there  is  £91  which  you  yourself  had  paid  her  in  gold  during 
that  period? — Yes. 

And  there  is  £216  which  she  had  drawn  out  in  gold  on  the  19th 
June,  1911?— Yes. 

Making  £412?— Yes. 

In  gold,  according  to  you? — I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  in  gold 
or  not.  What  does  she  live  on  if  she  has  all  that  money? 

Now,  we  will  take  off  the  £10  that  you  paid  her  on  the  2nd  September, 
and  that  will  leave  £402  in  gold  according  to  the  evidence  which  we  have 
got? — Yes. 

Traced  to  her  in  eight  months,  to  the  end  of  August,  1911? — Yes. 

Now,  of  that  £402,  as  I  understand  your  statement,  when  you  came 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

to  look  for  the  money  on  the  morning   of  her  death  you   found   3d.   in 
copper  in  her  purse? — Yes. 

And  that  is  all? — Yes. 

Did  you  make  any  inquiry  about  the  money? — I  hadn't  any  idea 
regarding  it. 

Then  does  that  mean  you  made  no  inquiry? — I  made  the  search.  I 
thought  if  she  had  deposited  it  I  ought  to  find  a  receipt.  I  didn't  know 
whether  she  might  have  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  friends  or  relatives  of 
hers,  though. 

What,  with  you  in  her  house  and  in  her  confidence? — I  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  property — I  only  dealt  with  the  property  twelve  months 
before  that.  I  had  finished  with  the  matter,  and  it  was  settled  twelve 
months  before  with  regard  to  the  financial  transactions.  I  never  had  her 
money,  otherwise  it  would  be  in  my  banking  account  or  invested  by  me. 
I  have  not  concealed  anything. 

According  to  your  view,  you  had  nothing  whatever  to  conceal  from 
her  relatives  ? — I  couldn't  explain  what  had  become  of  that  money. 

Why  did  you  not  tell  the  relatives  that  you  could  not  explain  it? — I 
told  him  he  had  not  shown  me  that  he  was  the  next-of-kin. 

Is  that  your  reason? — Yes,  I  did  not  go  into  details  beyond  what  I 
had  already  given  him. 

Now,  Mr.  Seddon,  just  think  for  a  minute.  If  you  have  any  other 
explanation  to  give,  give  it? — I  told  you  that  I  did  not  give  a  thought 
to  the  matter. 

And  is  that  your  only  explanation  to  my  lord  and  the  jury  of  your 
not  having  said  anything-  to  the  relatives  about  that  money  being  missed? 
—Yes. 

That  the  man  who  asked  you  was  not  the  legal  next-of-kin  ? — And  that 
I  could  not  say  where  it  was. 

Was  not  that  the  very  reason  why  you  should  have  told  him  that 
you  could  not  tell  where  it  was? — It  didn't  enter  my  head  for  to  go  into 
all  the  details. 

Did  you  ever  tell  the  police? — No. 

So  that  unless  this  inquiry  had  taken  place  no  one  would  ever  have 
known  anything  about  it? — I  don't  know.  I  don't  know  what  informa- 
tion the  relatives  are  possessed  of  regarding  this  matter.  She  might 
have  told  them  all  about  the  financial  transactions  for  all  I  know.  She 
was  meeting  them.  I  did  not  know  she  was  meeting  them  until  they 
said  in  evidence — they  said  they  were  meeting  her — they  said  they  met 
her  as  late  as  the  last  week  in  August.  I  have  been  expecting  all  through 
this  prosecution  to  see  the  documents  come  out. 

What  documents? — I  concluded  she  had  invested  it  somewhere  or 
deposited  it  somewhere,  or  something  like  that.  I  thought  all  kinds  of 
things  about  it. 

And  of  all  kinds  of  explanations? — No.  I  have  not  got  any  explana- 
tion regarding  it.  It  has  not  been  in  my  possession. 

If  you  thought  the  relatives  had  it  or  anybody  had  it? — I  did  not 
know  the  relatives  had  it.  I  thought  that. 

Then,  what  I  want  to  know  is  why  you  did  not  mention  it  to  them 
when  they  came  to  you? — At  the  interview  I  didn't  give  it  a  thought. 

201 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Did  you  realise,  Mr.  Seddon ? — I  don't  think  of  everything. 

You  do  not  think  of  everything,  but  you  think  of  several  hundreds 
of  pounds  in  gold,  that  is  what  I  am  suggesting  to  you? — Several  hundreds? 

Yes,  th°t  is  what  I  am  suggesting? — The  only  money  I  thought  about 
was  the  money  she  had  drawn  out  of  the  Finsbury  Savings  Bank  in  June. 

That  was  £216? — I  don't  know  what  she  did  with  it.  She  said 
that  she  knew  what  to  do  with  it. 

You  knew  when  the  appointment  was  made  for  9th  October  with 
Mr.  Vonderahe  what  the  object  of  that  meeting  was? — He  wanted  to 
know  about  her  investments. 

Yes,   and  her  property? — And  her  property. 

This  money  had  come  into  your  house,  the  £216,  and  as  you  told  us 
on  Saturday  was  causing  you  anxiety? — But  I  did  not  know  it  remained 
in  my  house. 

That  would  be  one  of  the  very  reasons  why  you  should  make  inquiry 
of  them,  would  it  not? — When  I  looked  in  the  trunk  it  was  not  there, 
and  I  could  not  account  for  it.  How  do  I  know  what  the  woman  had 
done  with  it?  She  went  out  every  day  and  met  her  relations  and  met 
friends.  She  used  to  be  out  the  best  part  of  the  day.  A  person 
does  not  want  much  assistance  with  regard  to  pounds,  shillings,  and 
pence. 

I  will  put  this  last  question  about  it.  I  will  give  you  an  oppor- 
tunity of  making  any  explanation? — How  can  I  explain  something  I  do 
not  know? 

Listen.  If  you  had  nothing  to  conceal,  what  I  am  suggesting  to 
you  is  that  you  would  have  made  inquiry  as  to  what  had  become  of  this 
money,  and  would  have  informed  the  relatives  or  the  police? — We  can 
all  be  wise  after  an  event. 

On  the  same  day,  the  14th,  it  is  in  the  afternoon  that  you  make 
another  search  in  the  bedroom,  is  it  not? — About  noon. 

Did  you  commence  when  you  found  the  £3  in  the  drawer — in  the 
fold  of  the  paper  in  the  drawer — that  is  the  drawer  you  had  already 
turned  out? — We  had  only  lifted  the  things  out.  We  did  not  take  the 
paper  lining  out. 

And  the  £2  10s.  in  the  bag  which  all  the  time  had  been  hanging 
on  the  post  of  the  bed? — Yes,  I  believe  Mrs.  Seddon  had  looked  inside 
that  bag,  but  she  did  not  feel  in  the  outside  pocket  of  it — the  close- 
fitting  pocket.  She  said  she  had  looked  in  the  bag. 

Where  was  your  family  on  the  evening  of  the  14th  September? — 
I  don't  know.  I  was  in  the  office. 

Do  you  not  know  where  they  went? — Yes;   they  went  to  a  theatre. 

Your  wife? — Yes. 

Your  father? — I  am  not  sure  he  went.  I  know  my  sister  went  and 
the  wife  went.  The  wife  did  not  want  to  go. 

That  was  the  night,  of  course,  that  the  body  was  taken  away? — 
Yes,  they  went  before  the  body  was  taken  away. 

You  remained  at  home? — Yes. 

While  they  were  at  the  theatre  and  you  were  left  at  home  the  body 
was  taken  away? — Yes,  the  undertaker  sent  for  it. 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Just  let  me  ask  you  some  further  questions  about  the  cash-box. 
You  were  in  Court,  of  course,  when  Mr.  Hook  gave  his  evidence? — I  have 
heard  his  statement  from  the  beginning. 

You  know  that  he  says  there  was  £380  in  gold  and  a  large  sum  in 
notes? — I  believe  he  always  said  there  was  £420  till  he  came  into  this 
Court. 

This  is  in  answer  to  my  learned  friend  in  cross-examination.  "  £380 
she  told  me.  Q. — £40  in  gold  had  been  got  rid  of  since  1906?  " — he 
says,  "Yes,  that  is  right.  Q. — Then  she  had  £380  in  gold  and  a 
large  eum  in  bank  notes?  A. — That  is  right."  If  this  woman  had  this 
money  in  the  house  I  don't  think  she  would  have  gone  away  for  four 
days'  holiday  to  the  seaside  and  leave  all  that  money  in  the  house. 

You  are  speaking  of  August,  1911? — Yes.  August  Bank  Holiday, 
when  she  went  away  for  four  days. 

By  August  of  1911  the  greater  part  of  these  bank  notes  had  already 
been  dealt  with? — Yes,  but  still,  according  to  the  prosecution,  there  would 
be  some  money  there  in  the  box. 

There  would  have  been  gold? — Yes. 

You  know  about  all  these  notes  having  been  dealt  with.  I  am 
putting  to  you  that  these  notes  came  out  of  the  cash  box? — I  don't 
know  where  they  came  from. 

Have  you  any  suggestions  to  make  as  to  where  they  did  come  from, 
if  they  did  not  come  from  the  cash -box? — No,  I  never  queried  the 
matter. 

You  know  the  statement  has  been  made,  not  only  by  Mr.  Hook  but 
by  Mr.  Vonderahe  about  the  notes  in  the  cash-box? — Yes,  they  have 
seen  more  than  I  have  seen. 

I  see  Mr.  Vonderahe  says  he  saw  this  cash-box  and  that  it  had 
bags  of  money  and  a  roll  of  bank  notes  in  it.  Do  you  remember  that? 
—Yes. 

The  roll  of  bank  notes  at  the  bottom  of  the  cash -box? — Yes. 

Supposing  that  the  gold  and  the  notes  were  there,  according  to  the 
sworn  statement  of  these  two  witnesses,  can  you  in  any  way  account  for 
the  disappearance  of  it? — I  cannot.  I  have  got  a  perfectly  clear  con- 
science on  that.  I  believe  Mr.  Vonderahe  himself  mentioned  something 
to  me  at  the  interview  that  there  was  money  in  her  trunk.  I  forget 
whether  I  told  him  how  much  I  found  there  or  not — I  am  not  sure. 

You  know  you  have  told  us  that  when  Mr.  Hook  was  leaving  she  had 
asked  you  to  take  care  of  the  cash-box? — Yes. 

First  of  all,  let  me  see  what  were  your  relations  with  Mr.  Hook 
when  he  was  being  turned  out.  Do  you  remember  saying  this — "  Miss 
Barrow  has  put  all  her  affairs  in  my  hands"? — No,  I  never  said  that. 

Is  that  untrue? — Yes.     All  her  affairs  were  not  in  my  hands. 

Did  Mr.  Hook  ask  you  if  she  had  put  her  money  into  your  hands? — 
Certainly  not.  It  was  not  mentioned. 

Is   that  an  invention   of   Mr.    Hook's? — Yes,    positively. 

An   untruth  deliberately  told  by  him? — It  is  an  untruth. 

Did  he  say  to  you,  "  I  will  defy  you  and  a  regiment  like  you  to  get 
her  money  in  your  hands  ' '  ? — Certainly  not ;  there  was  no  mention  of  it. 

203 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Did  you  say  that  you  did  not  want  her  money? — No,  it  was  not 
mentioned. 

That  you  were  going  to  look  after  her  interests? — No.  I  said,  "  1 
am  looking  after  her  interests  as  the  landlord."  I  said,  "You  are  not 
my  tenant.  I  have  told  Miss  Barrow  to  go,  and  she  does  not  want  to 
go,  and  she  said  she  had  given  you  notice  and  you  will  not  go,  and  she 
has  asked  me  to  give  you  notice."  He  said  if  he  went  he  would  take 
the  boy  with  him. 

Do  I  understand  you  that  all  this  conversation  which  I  have  just 
been  putting  to  you  which  Mr.  Hook  has  been  deposing  to  in  the  box, 
and  upon  which  he  has  been  cross-examined,  is  all  h,n  invention  of  Mr. 
Hook?— Yes. 

Now,  on  this  occasion,  when  Mr.  Hook  was  going,  according  to  your 
statement,  she  asked  you  to  take  care  of  her  cash-box,  and  said  there 
was  £30  or  £35  in  it?— Yes. 

You  know,  do  you  not,  that  at  least  £165  in  notes,  dating  1901  to 
1910,  have  been  traced  to  Miss  Barrow? — Yes,  I  have  heard  it. 

And  subsequently  traced  to  your  wife  and  yourself,  and  you  have 
admitted  it? — Yes — subsequently  traced  that  she  cashed  them  for  Miss 
Barrow. 

Yes? — There  is  no  trace  that  they  were  in  my  possession. 

Not  traced  to  your  possession  because  the  notes  have  been  dealt 
with? — Yes. 

They  have  been  in  your  possession? — But  without  having  the  money 
either. 

Do  you  represent  that  when  she  asked  you  about  this  cash-box  she 
said  there  was  only  £30  to  £35  in  i£7 — Yes. 

After  what  you  know? — Yes. 

And  what  we  know  about  the  notes? — I  do.  That  is  what  she  told 
n»e.  Perhaps  that  is  why  she  did  not  come  back  again. 

You  were  willing  to  take  care  of  it  if  she  counted  it  out  in  your 
pj essence? — So  that  I  could  give  her  a  receipt  for  the  correct  amount 
and  she  could  hold  the  key.  I  did  not  know  the  woman — she  was  a 
perfect  sti  anger  to  me — I  was  not  going  to  be  let  into  a  trap  like  that 
by  taking  possession  of  a  box  when  I  did  not  know  how  much  it  con- 
tained. 

When  you  said  that,  instead  of  counting  the  money  out  and  getting 
a  receipt  for  it  as  you  expected  that  you  would  do,  she  took  the  box 
upstairs? — She  went  upstairs  again.  She  said  she  would  go  up  and 
make  sure. 

Make  sure  of  what? — How  much  she  had  got  in  it. 

Why  should  not  she  go  upstairs  to  do  that? — Because  she  was  not  sure ; 
she  said  £30  to  £35. 

She  had  got  the  box  with  her? — Yes,  but  she  thought  1  was  going 
to  take  the  box  just  as  it  was  and  ask  no  questions  how  much  it  con- 
tained. 

Why  should  she  open  the  box  there  and  then? — I  am  sure  I  could 
204 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

not  enter  into   the   woman's   thoughts.     I    could   not  read   the   woman's 
mind. 

There  was  no  reason  why  she  should  not  have  opened  it  there  and 
then,  taken  the  money  out  and  counted  it? — I  did  not  see  any  reason 
why  she  should  not,  if  I  was  to  be  trusted. 

The  box  was  taken  away  upstairs  by  her? — And  she  locks  herself 
in  her  bedroom. 

And,  as  I  understand  your  story,  that  is  the  last  you  see  of  the 
cash-box  until  after  her  death? — Yes,  I  waited  some  time  and  then  went 
out.  I  had  got  my  business  to  attend  to,  and  it  appears  that  Hook 
had  gone  when  I  came  in.  It  was  the  day  that  Hook  left. 

I  want  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions  about  what  happened  on  the 
14th  at  the  interview  with  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr.  Taylor.  You  know  what 
Mr.  Taylor  has  said  about  this,  "  A  little  after  nine  o'clock  on  the  14th 
I  saw  some  gold."  You  know  what  I  am  speaking  of  now? — Yes,  and 
I  am  supposed  to  have  had  her  money  early  in  the  morning. 

"  I  think  the  last  collector  went  out  of  the  office  certainly  before 
seven  o'clock."  That  is  what  Mr.  Taylor  says? — Yes,  possibly. 

Then  he  says  this — "  I  heard  the  chink  of  money  and  I  just  turned 
my  head,  when  I  had  a  side  view  of  Mr.  Seddon 's  desk  and  I  saw 
several  piles  of  sovereigns  and  a  good  little  heap  besides.  Q. — About  how 
much  money  in  gold?  A. — Well,  at  the  time  I  estimated  it  at  over 
£200."  Then  he  is  asked  what  was  done.  "  Can  you  say  whether  that 
was  part  of  the  collectors'  money  or  not?  A. — No,  I  should  say  not. 
Q. — What  was  done  with  the  collectors'  money  when  it  was  received? 
A. — The  collectors'  money  was  put  in  the  till  which  Mr.  Seddon  kept 
in  the  cupboard.  And  he  personally  packed  these  sovereigns  into  four 
bags."  I  think  it  becomes  quite  clear  from  another  question.  "  At  the 
time  you  saw  this  quantity  of  gold  that  you  estimated  at  £200,  where 
was  the  till?  A. — In  the  cupboard.  Q. — Did  you  see  what  the  prisoner 
did  with  this  quantity  of  sovereigns?  A. — Yes,  he  packed  it  into  four 
bags.  Q. — And  what  did  he  do  with  it  then?  A. — He  took  them  up, 
and  he  held  three  under  his  arm.  He  took  up  the  other  one  in  his  hand 
aud  turned  round  facing  myself  and  Mr.  Smith,  my  fellow  assistant, 
put  one  bag  in  front  of  Mr.  Smith  and  said,  '  Here,  Smith,  here  is  your 
wages.'  He  picked  it  up  again  and  he  put  it  into  the  safe.  He  put 
the  four  bags  into  the  safe."  You  heard  that — you  heard  that  evidence 
given? — Yes;  the  statement  is  absurd.  In  the  first  place,  the  chink  of 
money  takes  place  every  Thursday,  so  there  is  nothing  extraordinary 
in  it.  When  a  man  who  has  got  his  back  turned  to  me,  when  he  hears 
the  chink  of  money  for  him  to  turn  round  would  be  a  most  unusual 
thing  for  him  to  do.  Then,  further,  for  him  to  have  observed  so  much 
actually  having  to  turn  in  his  chair  and  stand  watching  me  doing  this, 
if  he  had  done  that  I  should  have  told  him  to  get  on  with  his  accounts. 

Are  you  suggesting  that  this  is  an  invention  of  Mr.  Taylor? — I  do 
not  know  what  you  like  to  call  it,  but  the  statement  is  exaggerated. 
There  is  no  occasion  for  the  man  to  turn  round  at  the  chink  of  money, 
to  begin  with. 

You  know  what  the  point  is.       Nobody  knows  better  than  you,  Mr. 

•~  '""""*       205 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Seddon,  what  the  point  of  this  conversation  is.  You  understand  the 
point  of  it,  do  you  not? — Yes,  but  that  is  something  that  did  not  happen. 
He  might  have  turned  round  and  had  a  glance  and  then  went  on  with 
his  accounts. 

The  importance  of  the  difference  between  your  story  and  his  story  is 
this.  He  says  that  the  collectors'  money  had  been  put  into  the  till  in 
the  cupboard? — Certainly  not. 

That  is  his  story? — He  is  guessing — he  is  absolutely  guessing. 

He  says,  further,  that  after  nine  o'clock  at  night,  when  he  heard 
the  chink  of  money,  he  turned  round  and  saw  what  he  says  were  sovereigns? 
—No. 

You  say  that  is  untrue? — Yes,  certainly.  He  has  been  reading  the 
papers. 

He  says,  further,  that  he  saw  you  count  the  sovereigns  and  put  them 
into  four  bags? — Well,  how  could  he  see  with  his  back  turned  to  me? 
Look  at  the  plan  and  see  the  man's  position.  Smith  might  overlook  me, 
but  Taylor  would  have  to  turn  round  and  look  at  me  and  neglect  his 
duties,  and  it  is  getting  very  late  at  night  and  there  is  no  time  to  lose. 
It  is  not  likely  that  I  should  bring  money  from  the  top  of  the  house 
down  to  the  bottom — stolen  money,  as  suggested  by  the  prosecution — 
and  count  it  in  the  presence  of  my  assistants.  I  had  all  day  if  I  wanted 
to  count  money,  from  early  morning  until  nine  o'clock  at  night. 

Did  you  say,  jokingly,  "  Here,  Smith,  here's  your  wages  "? — Yes. 

Then  part  of  it  is  not  an  invention? — No,  it  is  not  the  first  time 
that  I  had  done  that  either. 

And  did  you  take  up  the  four  bags  and  put  them  into  the  safe? — 
No,  I  had  that  sliding  till — I  kept  that  on  the  drawer,  and  I  pulled 
another  drawer  out.  I  always  have  that  till  on  this  drawer  when  the 
men  are  paying  in  their  cash,  and  I  used  to  count  up  at  the  finish — I 
used  to  ask  them  what  the  total  is  by  the  superintendent's  sheet,  and 
then  I  would  start  counting  the  cash.  The  chink  of  money  is  a  common 
thing  on  post  days. 

No  doubt,  but  if  the  money  had  been  put  away  in  the  till  in  the 
cupboard? — But  it  had  not  been  put  away  in  the  till  in  the  cupboard. 
The  till  was  out  on  the  drawer  in  the  office. 

If  the  money  had  been  put  away  in  the  till  in  the  cupboard  the  chink 
of  money  would  naturally  draw  his  attention,  would  it  not? — It  had 
been  in  the  cupboard.  I  took  it  out  of  the  cupboard  to  count  it. 

Had  you  worked  long  with  Mr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Smith? — No,  they 
had  both  been  latterly  introduced  into  my  office  as  assistants ;  they  were 
both  practically  new  men  to  me.  Mr.  Taylor  had  been  a  superintendent 
and  he  had  been  reduced. 

What  do  you  call  practically  new — how  long  had  they  been  working 
with  you? — A  month  or  two.  Smith  had  been  an  agent  under  me. 

How  long  had  Smith  been  working  with  you?  How  long  had  you 
known  him? — I  cannot  say  exactly — about  twelve  months  or  something 
like  that,  but  he  had  only  been  in  my  office  a  month  or  two — either 
of  them.  They  were  practically  new  men  to  me  in  that  capacity  as 
assistants.  My  other  men  had  been  promoted. 

Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Smith  has  said  also  that  in  the  evening,  he 
206 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

says  about  8.30,  as  far  as  he  can  remember,  he  saw  loose  sovereigns  and 
half-sovereigns? — That  is  right,  there  were  loose  sovereigns  and  half- 
sovereigns.  There  was  £99  altogether  in  gold.  These  men  never 
thought  of  this  until  they  had  seen  that  there  was  £200  missing  in  the 
paper.  They  never  said  a  word  of  this  at  the  inquest.  They  had  all  got 
£200  on  the  brain  by  reading  it  in  the  paper. 

Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Smith  says  definitely  that  there  was  neither 
silver  nor  copper  on  the  table  when  he  saw  these  sovereigns? — He  must 
have  seen  both  if  he  could  overlook  me. 

What? — He  was  this  side  (describing)  he  could  see  me. 

You  know  quite  well  the  importance  of  it.  Listen  and  answer  the 
question  ? — Yes. 

You  see  you  have  said  in  your  evidence,  in  explanation  of  this 
incident,  that  the  money  that  was  being  dealt  with  was  one  bag  of  gold 
and  that  the  rest  of  it  was  silver? — Oh,  the  gold  was  in  two  bags.  It 
was  in  one  bag  at  the  finish  to  go  to  the  bank,  and  the  balance  was  in 
another  bag  and  put  in  the  safe.  There  were  three  bags  of  silver — 
there  were  four  bags  altogether. 

Your  explanation  of  this  incident  is  that  it  was  the  money  that  was 
being  dealt  with  either  from  the  bag  or  which  you  had  taken  out  in  order 
to  put  with  the  other  money  of  the  company? — It  was  the  company's 
money  and  my  own. 

And  that  the  rest,  the  silver  and  the  copper,  was  all  there,  too? — 
No,  there  was  very  little  or  no  copper. 

Well,  leave  out  the  copper.  The  silver  was  there,  too? — Yes,  there 
was  £15  17s.  6d. 

So  that  the  difference  between  you  and  Mr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Smith 
is  that  you  are  putting  this  incident  of  the  money  as  having  taken  place 
with  regard  to  all  the  collectors'  money  that  was  brought  in.  ? — Certainly. 

What  they  are  saying  is  that  that  had  all  been  dealt  with  and 
disposed  of? — It  had  not,  no. 

Listen.  And  that  you  were  simply  then  dealing  with  heaps  of  gold 
and  no  silver  and  no  copper? — No — absurd.  It  was  the  company's 
money  and  my  own.  It  is  not  feasible  a  man  is  going  to  do  a  thing  like 
that. 

What  do  you  mean? — The  prosecution  are  suggesting  that  I  am 
dealing  with  the  deceased  woman's  gold ;  that  I  should  bring  it  down 
from  the  top  of  the  house  to  the  bottom  into  the  office  in  the  presence 
of  my  assistants  and  count  it  up?  Is  it  feasible?* 

I  do  not  want  to  argue  with  you,  but  you  know  that  .sometimes 
people  do  very  foolish  things? — Well,  I  am  not  a  degenerate.  That 
would  make  it  out  that  I  was  a  greedy,  inhuman  monster. 

What? — That  I  am  a  greedy,  inhuman  monster,  or  something  with 
a  very  degenerate  mind,  to  commit  a  vile  crime  such  as  the  prosecution 
suggest,  and  then  bringing  the  dead  woman's  money  down  and  counting 
it  in  the  presence  of  my  two  assistants  and  flouting  it  like  that.  The 
suggestion  is  scandalous.  I  would  have  all  day  to  count  the  money. 

Now,  let  me  ask  you  about  what  happened  the  next  day.       In  point 


*  In  this  and  the  following  two  answers  Seddon  exhibited  the  first  sign  of  indig- 
nation and  heat  that  he  had  shown  in  his  long  cross-examination. — ED. 

207 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

of  fact  you  had  paid  in,  on  the  15th  September,  to  your  bank  £35 
more  in  gold? — Over  and  above  the  company's  money  I  had  paid  in 
£35  to  my  own  current  account. 

Did  you,  on  the  same  day,  pay  £30  in  gold  to  the  savings  bank? — 
I  did— that  is  £65. 

And  did  you,  on  the  18th  September,  pay  £90  in  gold  for  the 
three  Building  Society  shares? — Yes,  I  took  £100  down  to  put  into  the 
Building  Society  towards  my  mortgage. 

All  this  time,  of  course,  you  had  your  banking  account,  the  London 
and  Provincial? — Yes,  but  there  was  a  good  balance  there  as  it  was. 

And  you  had  money  on  deposit  with  the  bank? — Yes. 

And  had  money  on  deposit  in  the  Post  Office  Savings  Bank? — Tea. 

You  had  paid  in  so  small  a  sum  as  £30  to  get  the  interest  on  deposit  ? 
— Yes,  I  put  a  little  in  each. 

And  the  £70  you  had  paid  in  which  was  the  balance  of  the  £116 
you  had  drawn  out  of  the  London  and  Westminster  Bank? — Yes. 

In  order  to  earn  interest  on  the  money  on  deposit? — Yes. 

So  that  the  money  should  not  lie  idle  and  unremunerative  ? — That 
is  it. 

On  15th  September  you  went  to  the  jeweller,  Mr.  Wright? — Yes, 
I  had  to  pass  there  when  I  went  to  see  my  sister  off  to  Wolverhampton. 

How  far  was  it  from  your  house? — How  far?  A  quarter  of  an  hour 
or  twenty  minutes'  walk. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  on  15th  September,  the  day  after  this  woman's 
death,  you  did  go  to  the  jeweller's  and  ask  for  the  diamond  ring  that  is 
exhibited  to  be  made  larger? — No  doubt  whatever. 

To  fit  your  middle  finger? — To  fit  this  finger. 

So  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  what  I  am  putting  to  you.  What  I 
am  suggesting  is  that  you  had  taken  this  ring  after  her  death,  and  were 
having  it  altered  to  fit  your  finger? — I  had  it  on  the  little  finger — I  had 
got  two  diamond  rings  and  a  curb  ring.  I  wore  the  two  diamond  rings 
on  these  two  fingers  because  1  did  not  want  to  interfere  with  the  ring 
during  Miss  Barrow's — during  the  time  Miss  Barrow  was  with  me.  I  did 
not  want  to  hurt  her  feelings.  I  wore  it  on  the  little  finger  during 
the  lifetime,  and  on  the  15th  September  I  had  it  enlarged  to  fit  this  finger. 

As  I  understand,  what  you  have  told  us  was  Miss  Barrow  had  ob- 
jected to  pay  any  costs  to  the  solicitors  in  respect  of  the  annuity! — She 
said  she  had  no  money  to  spare. 

That  was  in  January  of  1911? — I  showed  her  the  bill — I  showed  her 
the  two  bills — tremendous  costs. 

According  to  your  story,  you  told  us  on  Saturday  she  gave  you  the 
diamond  ring? — Yes,  she  brought  it  down. 

Instead  of  money? — Yes.  The  amount  I  paid  on  her  behalf  to  Mr. 
Knight  was  £4  13s. 

It  is  not  till  the  day  after  her  death,  on  the  15th,  that  you  took  the 
ring  to  the  jeweller? — No,  that  is  right. 

For  this  purpose? — Right. 

Did  you  take  a  watch  there  on  the  same  day? — The  same  day. 

You  know  that  this  ring  that  we  have  just  been  speaking  of  was 
found  in  your  safe  when  you  were  arrested.  You  were  not  wearing  it. 
208 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

although  it  had  been  altered  to  fit  your  finger.  You  know  that,  do  you 
not? — I  had  not  had  it  on  that  day — the  day  I  was  arrested.  I  did  not 
always  wear  the  three  rings. 

Now,  let  me  ask  you  about  the  watch.  On  the  same  day  you  went 
on  a  second  occasion  to  the  jewellers? — Yes. 

That  was  Friday,  the  day  after  the  death? — Yes,  that  was  the  time 
I  took  the  watch — on  the  evening  of  the  same  day. 

Yes,  with  your  wife? — Yes,  we  had  been  to  see  my  sister  off  at  the 
station — at  Euston. 

But  you  had  been  twice.  You  had  not  seen  your  sister  off  both 
times? — No,  I  am  talking  about  the  second  time  when  I  went  to  the 
jeweller's  with  the  watch  when  I  had  been  to  see  my  sister  off.  I  had 
called  in  before. 

You  had  been  to  the  jeweller's  again? — I  did  not  go  especially  to  the 
jeweller's  on  that  morning.  I  called  in  as  I  was  passing. 

When  you  went  about  the  ring  it  was  not  because  you  had  been 
seeing  your  sister  off? — Oh,  no,  no.  I  was  merely  passing. 

Then  in  the  evening  you  went  with  your  wife,  when  you  had  been 
to  see  your  sister  off? — I  told  her  I  was  having  the  ring  enlarged.  She 
said,  "  What  about  my  watch?  I  would  like  it  to  take  on  my  holidays," 
and  I  said,  "  All  right;  we  are  passing  to-night  seeing  Emma  off.  I 
will  take  it,  and  let  Wright  put  a  new  dial  on  it,  and  perhaps  he  will 
get  it  done  before  we  go  away." 

Is  that  what  you  went  for,  to  have  a  new  dial  put  on  it? — A  new 
dial  and  the  name  erased. 

We  have  seen  where  the  name  was? — Yea. 

It  did  not  show? — No. 

Nobody  could  see  it? — But  while  I  was  having  one  job  done  I  might 
as  well  have  both  done  at  the  same  time. 

Why  should  you  be  in  such  a  hurry  to  have  the  name  taken  off  the 
watch,  on  the  day  after  her  death? — There  was  no  hurry  beyond  this. 
We  had  decided  to  go  for  our  holidays  to  Southend-on-sea.  We  had 
sent  the  children  in  advance,  and  Mrs.  Seddon  wanted  to  wear  her 
jewellery  at  the  seaside.  So  as  I  had  called  in  to  get  the  ring  enlarged 
she  said,  "  You  might  as  well  get  my  dial  done,  and  get  the  watch  done 
at  the  same  time,  and  perhaps  they  could  get  it  done  in  time  for  me 
to  wear  at  the  seaside." 

Who  suggested  the  taking  of  the  name  off  the  back  plate  of  the 
watch? — I  did. 

When  did  you  notice  that  the  name  of  Eliza  Jane  Barrow  was  on  the 
watch? — When  she  presented  it  to  Mrs.  Seddon. 

Were  you  present? — Yes. 

When  was  it?— On  the  22nd  or  27th  of  April,  1911.  I  am  not 
sure.  It  was  her  birthday,  anyway.  It  was  a  birthday  present. 

There  was  no  reason  why  she  should  not  have  had  the  name  taken 
off  the  back  plate  during  the  lifetime  of  Miss  Barrow? — Oh,  yes,  certainly ; 
it  was  her  mother's  watch — I  would  not  hurt  the  woman's  feelings  lie 
that. 

But  you  did  hurt  them  the  day  after  her  death? — But  she  was  dead 
then.  Had  she  removed  from  my  house  while  she  lived  I  would  have 
o  209 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

done  it,  and  I  told  my  wife  I  would  not  have  it  done  in  consequence  of  that, 
and  my  wife  would  not  wear  the  watch  in  consequence  of  that  because  the 
dial  was  discoloured  and  cracked,  and  she  wanted  to  wear  it  here  on  a 
swivel.  (Describing.)  I  said,  "It  is  worth  a  gold  dial,"  but  I  said 
I  would  not  have  it  done  while  Miss  Barrow  was  with  us. 

You  know  you  told  me  that  watch  was  found  in  the  wardrobe,  and 
she  was  not  wearing  it  at  the  time  of  your  arrest  on  the  4th  of  December  1 
— That  may  be,  I  dare  say;  she  did  not  have  the  rest  of  her  jewellery  on. 

I  still  would  like  to  know  why  did  you  want  to  take  that  name  off 
at  all.  Why  was  it  worth  spending  a  penny  on  if  that  watch  was 
honestly  your  wife's? — When  I  was  having  the  dial  put  on  I  might  as  well 
have  the  name  taken  off  at  the  same  time.  A  watch  is  greatly  depreciated 
in  value  by  having  a  name  engraved  on  it. 

You  were  not  thinking  of  selling  it,  were  you? — No,  certainly  not, 
but  still  Eliza  Jane  Barrow  was  no  relative  of  ours — it  was  the  mother's 
watch.  I  should  have  had  it  done  if  Miss  Barrow  had  removed  into  other 
lodgings,  but  I  would  not  do  it  while  she  was  living  with  us.  It  looks 
as  if  you  did  not  appreciate  the  giver. 

You  did  not  think  it  would  have  been  kind  to  do  it? — No,  it  would 
not  have  been  kind.  Mrs.  Seddon  had  often  asked  me  to  get  it  done 
for  her. 

Why  had  you  not  done  it? — I  have  told  you.  I  just  explained  why 
I  would  not  do  it.  I  said,  "  I  will  not  do  it  while  she  is  with  us. 
Perhaps  in  the  future  she  may  leave  here,  and  then  you  can  have  it 
done  then."  She  said  she  would  not  wear  it  until  she  had  got  it  done. 
The  jeweller  told  me  that  he  would  have  to  send  it  to  Switzerland  to  be 
done ;  to  the  makers  of  the  watch  to  have  it  done. 

That  was  to  have  the  dial  done? — That  is  what  I  mean.  The 
erasing  of  the  name  was  an  easy  matter. 

Just  look  at  that  (a  brooch,  exhibit  33).  Did  that  belong  to  Miss 
Barrow? — It  did. 

Was  that  included  in  the  inventory  which  you  had  made  of  the 
jewellery  left  to  the  children? — It  was  not  Miss  Barrow's  at  the  time  of 
her  death. 

Then  it  was  not  included  in  the  inventory? — No,  it  was  presented  to 
my  daughter  on  her  birthday.  She  had  another  one  presented  to  her 
at  Christmas. 

Do  you  mean  by  Miss  Barrow? — Yes. 

That,  exhibit  32,  is  the  inventory  of  her  total  effects  at  £16  14s.  6d.? 
— That  is  the  auctioneer's  valuation. 

How  many  watches  had  this  lady? — Three. 

Now,  those  are  the  other  two? — They  look  like  it. 

Would  you  let  me  also  see  the  watch  (same  handed  to  the  Attorney- 
General)?  Those  are  the  three  which  she  had? — Yes,  this  looks  like  it. 

Now,  that  watch  which  you  hold  in  your  hand  had  the  name  of  Miss 
Barrow's  mother  on  it? — Yes. 

And  the  date  "I860  "?— Yes. 

She  treasured  it,  did  she  not,  very  highly? — As  her  mother's  watch, 
yes.  She  never  wore  it — she  never  wore  any  jewellery.  Of  course,  that 
gold  watch  did  not  look  as  nice  as  that  before  it  had  the  gold  dial  put  on 
210 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

it,  you  know.  It  was  very  much  discoloured  and  cracked ;  the  dial  looked 
more  like  the  dial  of  the  silver  watch. 

If  your  wife  had  it  in  her  possession,  then,  during  that  time,  from 
April  to  Miss  Barrow's  death,  why  did  she  not  have  the  dial  mended? — I 
told  you  I  would  not  allow  her  to  have  the  dial  altered. 

You  told  us  you  would  not  allow  her  to  have  the  name  taken  out? — 
I  would  not  allow  the  watch  to  be  interfered  with  at  all  during  the  time 
Miss  Barrow  was  with  us.  That  is  what  I  said — she  said  she  would  not 
wear  it  until  it  was  done. 

Now,  I  have  asked  you  about  these  three  pieces  of  jewellery.  Were 
not  those  three  the  three  most  valuable  pieces  of  jewellery  she  possessed? 
— I  don't  know. 

The  diamond  ring,  the  gold  watch  which  belonged  to  the  mother? — 
Yes. 

And  the  gold  chain  and  pendant? — Yes,  I  should  think  that  chain 
was  invaluable  attached  to  that  lever  watch — the  gold-digging  chain. 

Why  I  am  asking  you  is  because  you  have  got  the  inventory  before 
you  of  what  was,  in  fact,  valued  for  the  benefit  of  the  two  children,  Hilda 
and  Ernest  Grant? — Yes. 

Look  at  the  inventory.  You  know  what  is  valued  in  it,  and  it  comes 
to  £16  14s.  6d.,  the  whole  amount — jewellery,  furniture,  and  clothing? — 
Yes.  That  does  not  represent  what  the  stuff  would  cost,  you  know. 

Haye  you  any  doubt  that  these  three  pieces  of  jewellery  to  which 
we  have  just  been  referring  were  the  most  valuable  pieces  of  jewellery  in 
her  possession? — I  have  not  considered  it  till  now. 

Then,  will  you  consider  it  now.  You  know  perfectly  well  they  are 
not  in  the  inventory,  of  course.  But  there  is  a  lot  more  jewellery  than 
that,  is  there  not? — There  is  some  more.  I  have  not  had  all  the  jewellery 
put  to  me  for  to  value  it  now.  I  cannot  carry  everything  in  my  mind. 

The  three  articles  of  jewellery  we  have  just  been  dealing  with,  I  am 
putting  to  you,  were  the  three  most  valuable  pieces  of  jewellery  that 
Miss  Barrow  possessed? — Well,  I  think  I  would  sooner  have  the  lever 
watch  and  that  chain. 

I  am  asking  you  to  look  at  what  there  is  in  the  inventory.  I  will 
read  it  if  you  have  any  doubt  about  it,  so  that  the  jury  may  know  what 
it  was  that  forms  the  jewellery  in  that  inventory.  "  Three  seaside 
brooches,  silver  locket  and  chain,  two  small  mourning  brooches"? — They 
are  gold;  it  is  not  stated  gold  here. 

It  is  called  here,  "  Two  small  mourning  brooches,  one  pair  of  pince- 
nez,  three  pieces  of  Maundy  money,  a  pair  of  gold  solitaires,  silver 
thimble,  gent.'s  silver  lever  watch,"  &c.  That  is  the  lot? — Yes,  that  gold- 
digger's  Australian  cable  chain  is  composed  of  all  the  minerals  that  are 
found  in  the  gold  mines,  I  believe — a  very  valuable  chain. 

Then  that  is  part  of  the  value  of  the  £16? — Yes,  but  I  have  not 
valued  them. 

You  remember  you  wrote  the  letter  on  the  21st  September,  exhibit 
3?— Yes. 

It  is  1911.     It  is  dated  by  mistake  1910,   "To  the  relatives  of  the 

211 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

late   Eliza    Mary   Barrow,    who    died    on    14th    September    at   the    above 
address."     You  remember  that? — Yes. 

I  am  going  to  suggest  to  you  that  this  letter  concealed  from  the 
family  what  had  really  happened — concealed  from  them  the  annuity — 
this  arrangement  between  you  and  her  about  the  annuity — and  sug- 
gested to  them  that  the  arrangements  that  had  been  made  about  the 
annuity  had  been  done  through  stockbrokers  and  solicitors,  and  not  a 
word  in  it  to  suggest  that  you  had  anything  to  do  with  it? — It  does 
conceal  it,  yes,  but  not  intentionally.  As  you  put  it  I  can  see  it. 

As  I  put  it  to  you,  you  see  that  it  does  conceal  a  very  important  fact? 
—Yes. 

According  to  your  view,   is  that  an  accident? — Certainly. 

A  pure  accident? — Yes. 

In  a  letter  which  you  are  drafting  for  the  purpose  of  informing  the 
relatives  of  what  had  become  of  her  property — that  is  the  object  of 
the  letter,  is  it  not? — Yes. 

And  you  do  not  tell  them  the  important  fact? — I  am  not  informing 
them  what  has  become  of  the  property.  I  am  telling  them  what  she 
has  done — that  she  has  disposed  of  her  property  to  purchase  an  annuity. 
That  is  what  I  had  in  my  mind. 

You  are  writing  this,  you  know,  as  an  executor  under  the  will? — 
I  am  not  an  experienced  man  as  an  executor.  I  have  never  been  executor 
under  a  will  before. 

No,  but  you  were  executor  under  this  will,  and  in  that  capacity  you 
purported  to  write  to  the  relatives? — Yes. 

You   give  them   a   formal  notice? — Yes. 

Writing  a  letter — I  will  read  it  now.  "  To  the  relatives  of  the  late 
Miss  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  who  died  on  14th  September,  1911,  at  the  above 
address,  from  epidemic  diarrhoea,  certified  by  Dr.  Sworn.  Duration  of 
illness,  ten  days.  As  executor  of  the  will  of  Miss  Barrow,  dated  llth 
September,  1911,  I  hereby  certify  that  Miss  Barrow  has  left  all  she 
died  possessed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appointed  me  as  sole 
executor  to  hold  in  trust  until  they  become  of  age.  Her  property  and 
investments  she  disposed  of  through  solicitors  and  stock  exchange  brokers, 
about  October  and  December,  1910,  last  to  purchase  a  life  annuity  which 
she  received  monthly  up  to  the  time  of  her  death,  and  the  annuity  died 
with  her.  She  stated  in  writing  that  she  did  not  wish  any  of  her  rela- 
tives to  receive  any  benefit  on  her  death,  and  during  her  last  illness 
declined  to  have  any  relatives  called  in  to  see  her,  stating  that  they 
had  treated  her  badly,  and  had  not  considered  her,  and  she  would  not 

consider  them.     She  has  merely  left  furniture,  jewellery,  clothing "  ? 

— That  is  as  far  as   I   found. 

Not  only  does  this  letter  conceal  the  truth,  as  you  have  admitted, 
but  I  am  suggesting  to  you  that  it  is  deliberately  written  by  you  to 
conceal  the  truth? — No. 

You  write  the  letter  as  executor  of  the  will,  and  you  certify  that 
she  left  all  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant? — But  I 
could  not  hope  to  conceal  it ;  there  was  no  hole  and  corner  business  about 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

it.  I  could  not  hope  to  conceal  it.  I  could  not  stop  anybody  from 
making  the  necessary  inquiries. 

You  prevented  Mr.  Vonderahe  making  inquiries  because  he  was  not 
the  legal  next-of-kin? — It  had  gone  through  many  hands,  but  they  were 
free  to  do  what  they  liked. 

"  Her  property  and  investments  she  disposed  of  through  solicitors 
and  stock  exchange  brokers  about  October  and  December,  1910,  last, 
to  purchase  a  life  annuity"? — That  is  true. 

Do  you  consider  that  that  is  the  whole  truth  that  is  to  be  told  to  the 
relations  by  the  executors? — The  letter  does  prove — it  does  not  explain 
everything. 

Do  you  consider  that  that  was  a  true  statement  to  put  before  them? 
Do  you  represent  now,  with  that  letter  before  you,  that  that  was  a  true, 
honest  statement? — At  the  time,  yes. 

What  do  you  mean  by  "at  the  time"? — As  you  represent  it  to 
me  now  it  is  not,  but  at  the  time  it  was  to  my  mind. 

The  facts  have  not  changed  from  that  time  to  this? — No,  but  I  am 
not  in  the  habit  of  writing  this  kind  of  letter. 

Therefore,  I  suggest  to  you  that  unless  you  set  to  work  to  do  it, 
you  would  not  be  in  the  habit  of  concealing  anything? — Unless  I  set  to 
work  to  do  it? 

If  you  sit  down  to  write  a  letter  and  are  honestly  putting  forward 
a  plain  businesslike  statement  to  the  relatives? — I  gave  them  what  I 
considered  necessary  information. 

What  you  considered  necessary,  but  not  full  information? — I  could 
not,  unless  I  wrote  a  big  document,  give  them  full  information. 

Do  you  not  think  you  might  have  written  in  that  letter,  if  you  did  not 
wish  to  conceal  it,  "I  have  purchased  the  property  and  granted  her  an 
annuity"? — This  letter  is  not  posted  to  them.  They  called  personally 
and  they  received  this  by  hand. 

What  do  you  mean? — I  gave  it  to  Mrs.  Vonderahe  to  give  to  her 
husband. 

You  meant  that  as  the  formal  document  from  you  as  executor  of 
the  estate? — Information. 

To  the  relatives? — Information,   yes. 

And  if  they  had  not  suspected  you  that  would  have  been  the  end 
of  the  thing? — I  don't  see  that. 

Not  even  now? — I   do  now. 

And  when  Mr.  Vonderahe  called  afterwards  on  9th  October,  did  you 
not  say  to  him  that  you  had  given  him  full  information? — I  said  "  I  have 
given  you  information.  I  will  give  you  a  copy  of  the  will,  and  I  have 
explained  to  you  what  she  did  with  her  investments.  If  there  are  any 
further  details  that  you  require,  if  you  show  me  you  are  the  legal  next-of- 
kin  to  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  I  will  go  into  further  details  with  you." 

But  you  know  he  was  not  the  legal  next-of-kin? — How  did  I  know 
that? 

I  thought  you  told  us  Miss  Barrow  had  told  you  there  was  a  brother? 
— Miss  Barrow  stated  there  was  a  brother.  I  understood  her  to  say 
he  was  the  black  sheep  of  the  family,  or  something  like  that. 

213 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

And,  of  course,  if  you  could  maintain  that  contention  that  it  was 
the  elder  brother  who  was  entitled  to  ask,  you  knew  he  would  be  in  a 
difficulty  to  produce  that  elder  brother? — No,  I  did  not. 

Not  after  what  Miss  Barrow  had  told  you? — He  said,  "  Supposing 
he  is  dead?"  "Well,"  I  said,  "you  can  get  a  certificate  of  death,  or 
you  can,  if  you  like,  go  to  a  commissioner  of  oaths  and  swear  that  you 
are  the  next-of-kin  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow."  These  were  business  trans- 
actions that  had  taken  place  fourteen  months  before. 

If  the  Vonderahes  had  read  that  letter  with  that  statement  in  it 
about  her  property  and  investments,  was  there  anything  in  it  which  wou..i 
show  them  that  you  were  the  person  who  had  granted  the  annuity? — No, 
but  there  was  a  letter  in  my  handwriting  that  they  could  have  taken 
to  any  solicitor  they  liked  and  caused  an  investigation  to  be  made. 

Which  letter  in  your  handwriting? — This.  I  told  them  I  was  pre- 
pared to  stand  by  what  I  had  given  them  in  writing.  I  had  given  them 
a  copy  of  the  will.  I  had  given  them  a  letter.  I  had  also  shown  them 
a  letter  that  Miss  Barrow  had  written  to  me.  I  did  not  consider  my 
past  business  transactions  with  Miss  Barrow  had  got  anything  to  do 
with  it. 

And  is  that  why  you  did  not  tell  them  about  it? — I  suppose  so. 

Is  that  why  you  did  not  tell  them  about  it? — I  did  not  give  it  the 
fullest  consideration  at  the  time. 

You  have  just  told  us  that  you  did  not  consider  that  your  past 
transactions  had  anything  to  do  with  it? — Not  these  transactions — not 
the  business  transactions  that  had  been  closed. 

And  is  that  the  reason  why  you  did  not  give  them  any  explanation 
of  it? — I  cannot  say  it  was  at  the  time.  I  cannot  say  that  that  is  the 

•/  •> 

thought  that  was  passing  through  my  mind  at  the  time.  It  is  a  thought 
that  occurs  to  me  now. 

That  letter  is  not  a  very  frank  statement,  is  it? — That  is  the  view  you 
have  taken  of  it,  and  I  have  agreed. 

I  understand  you  agree  with  that? — Well,  I  could  have  put  more 
in  the  letter  evidently. 

It  would  have  taken  less  words  to  have  said  that  you  had  sold  her 
the  annuity  and  had  got  the  property? — But  what  difference  did  that 
make? 

Don't  argue  with  me.  Now,  Mr.  Seddon,  you  see  that  letter  with 
the  statements  in  it  about  having  disposed  of  the  property  and  invest- 
ments— "  Her  property  and  investments  she  disposed  of  through  her 
solicitors  and  Stock  Exchange  brokers."  That  would  convey  to  the  mind 
of  any  person  reading  it  that  the  transactions  had  been  by  her  with 
solicitors,  or  Stock  Exchange  brokers — meaning  with  strangers? — No, 
that  it  had  been  done  in  order.  Stockbrokers  deal  with  stock,  and 
solicitors  deal  with  deeds. 

Do  you  understand  the  question  I  am  putting  to  you? — Yes,  that  is 
my  answer. 

Let  me  read  it  to  you  again — "  Her  property  and  investments  she 

disposed  of  through  solicitors  and  Stock  Exchange  brokers  about  October 

and  December,   1910,  last,  to  purchase  a  life  annuity."     Would  not  that 

suggest  that  the  transaction  had  been  done  with  strangers  in  an  ordinary, 

214 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

formal,  and  regular  way? — No.  What  I  meant  to  convey  was  it  had 
been  done  in  order. 

What  is  the  point  of  saying  it  has  been  done  in  order  unless  you 
had  said  that  it  had  been  done  with  you.  Can  you  give  any  explanation? 
— I  can  only  follow  what  you  said,  that  that  is  something  that  should 
have  been  introduced  that  I  have  omitted. 

You  had  that  document  already  written  out  when  Mrs.  Vonderahe 
came  to  see  you  on  the  21st? — *I  wrote  it  at  midnight.  I  did  not  come 
in  till  midnight,  and  I  was  told  that  they  were  coming  in  the  morning, 
and  of  course  I  drafted  it  out  before  I  went  to  bed. 

You  had  it  all  prepared? — For  the  interview  next  day,  yes. 

You  knew  they  were  coming,  and  you  knew  why  they  were  coming? 
— Yes,  I  knew.  I  had  not  much  time  to  interview  them.  I  had  my 
business  to  attend  to,  and  they  were  coming  at  an  awkward  time  for 
me.  Really  I  did  not  intend  to  grant  them  as  long  an  interview  as  I 
did,  because  I  had  to  neglect  my  business  to  do  so.  I  ought  to  have 
been  at  the  office  at  nine  o'clock,  and  I  had  the  interview  with  them  at 
half -past  ten. 

You  did  not  want  an  interview? — I  did  not  want  to  have  an  interview, 
but  I  did. 

Did  you  tell  Mr.  Vonderahe  when  he  came  to  you  on  9th  October 
that  you  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  annuity? — No,  the  question  was  not 
asked. 

Do  you  know  that  he  said  you  did? — I  don't  know  what  he  says  I 
did.  I  will  tell  you  what  he  did  say.  He  said,  "What  insurance 
company  did  she  get  this  annuity  from?  "  I  said,  "  If  you  show  to  me 
that  you  are  the  legal  next-of-kin  to  make  investigations  regarding  Miss 
Barrow's  affairs  I  will  go  into  full  details  with  you." 

You  did  not  tell  him  at  that  interview  that  it  was  you  who  had 
granted  the  annuity,  did  you? — No.  He  asked  me  who  was  the  landlord 
of  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's  shop.  I  said,  "  I  am."  There  is 
an  admission. 

And  I  put  it  to  you,  not  only  did  you  not  tell  him,  but  you  told 
him  that  you  had  nothing  to  do  with  it? — No,  I  did  not. 

Listen  to  what  he  has  said? — Well,  I  am  speaking  the  truth.  He 
had  a  friend  with  him,  and  the  prosecution  have  not  called  that  friend. 

Listen? — All  he  said  is  not  gospel. 

He  says,  "  I  said  to  him  '  Who  is  the  owner  of  the  Buck's  Head 
now'"?— Yes.  And  I  said,  "I  am." 

Then,  did  you  say  this,  "  I  am  always  open  to  buy  property.  This 
house  I  live  in,  fourteen  rooms,  is  my  own,  and  I  have  seventeen  other 
properties.  I  am  always  open  to  buy  property  at  a  price"?  Did  you 
say  that? — Yes,  but  I  may  tell  you  that  I  did  not  say  that  it  was  in  the 
open  market.  He  said  I  said  that,  but  I  did  not  say  that. 

Is  that  an  invention  of  his? — It  is  a  false  statement. 

When  you  said  to  him  that  you  had  seventeen  other  properties,  were 
you  not  referring  to  the  properties  in  the  Coutts  Road,  which  you  had 
bought  with  the  proceeds  of  the  India  stock? — Yes,  fourteen  houses. 

Now,  I  want  your  careful  attention  to  this.  "  I  asked  him  how  it 
was  that  my  cousin  was  buried  in  a  common  grave  when  she  had  a 

215 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

family  vault  at  Highgate.  He  " — that  is  you — "  said,  '  I  thought  it  was 
full  up/  I" — that  is  Mr.  Vonderahe — "said,  'Who  bought  the  India 
stock? '  He  said,'  You  will  have  to  write  to  the  Governor  of  the  Bank 
of  England  and  ask  him  whether  everything  has  been  done  in  a  perfectly 
legal  manner  through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers.  I  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it.'"? — I  said,  "If  you  are  the  legal  next-of-kin  of  Eliza  Mary 
Barrow  I  am  prepared  to  go  into  details  with  you,  otherwise  you  can 
write  to  the  Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England." 

Then,  when  he  asked  you  who  had  bought  the  India  stock  did  you  not 
say  to  him,  "  You  can  write  to  the  Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England  "? 
—Yes. 

And  did  you  say  to  him,  "  Everything  has  been  done  in  a  perfectly 
legal  manner  through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers"? — I  do  not  know 
whether  I  used  the  word  "  legal."  I  said,  "  I  have  told  you  in  the  letter 
that  I  have  written  to  you  that  everything  has  been  done  in  perfect 
order,  and  I  am  prepared  to  stand  by  it." 

And  then  you  did  say  this,  "  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it"? — No,  I 
did  not,  because  he  would  find  me  out  in  a  lie,  would  he  not? 

But  you  see  it  takes  a  great  many  inquiries  to  find  out  some  lies? — 
You  would  not  have  far  to  go  to  find  that  out,  because  already  I  have 
admitted  that  I  am  in  possession  of  the  Buck's  Head. 

Now  listen,  "  Was  anything  said  about  why  or  how  he  had  become 
possessed  of  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's  shop?  A. — He  said  it 
was  in  the  open  market,  and  that  he  had  bought  it"? — No.  The  open 
market  was  not  mentioned. 

That  is  the  last  communication  you  had  with  Mr.  Vonderahe,  was 
it  not,  on  9th  October? — Yes,  I  do  not  remember  any  other  interview. 

I  want  to  put  this  last  question  to  you.  If  you  had  nothing  to 
conceal  and  these  were  perfectly  honest  transactions  you  were  dealing 
with,  why  should  you  object  to  telling  Mr.  Vonderahe  when  he  came 
to  you  as  the  representative  of  the  relations? — I  did  not  like  the  man's 
demeanour  for  one  thing.  I  did  not  like  the  way  he  put  it  to  me. 
Another  thing,  the  way  they  spoke  about  Miss  Barrow  did  not  show 
that  they  were  kindly  disposed  people,  and  the  way  they  treated  my 
daughter,  in  having  the  door  slammed  in  her  face.  Mrs.  Vonderahe 
admitted  in  the  box  here  that  the  door  must  have  been  blown  to,  but 
she  slammed  the  door  in  my  daughter's  face.  I  stood  by  what  I  told 
him,  that  the  position  was  this.  I  said,  "  If  you  show  to  me  that 
you  are  the  legal  next-of-kin  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  I  will  answer  all  your 
questions  and  give  you  details,"  and  while  he  did  not  do  that  he  was 
still  trying  to  wheedle  this  information  from  me.  If  I  had  anything  to 
conceal  I  would  not  have  written  these  letters. 

You  have  just  told  us  about  the  writing  of  the  letter  of  the  14th 
September.  The  copy  has  been  produced.  The  typewritten  letter  has 
not  been  produced? — That  was  sent  to  the  Vonderahes.  It  would  not 
go  to  the  Evershot  Road  if  they  had  altered  their  address  in  the  post 
office,  as  they  say  they  had ;  it  would  go  direct  to  Corbin  Street. 

If  it  was  posted? — It  was  posted,  most  decidedly  it  was  posted. 

You  said  that  when  Mrs  Vonderahe  came  in  and  you  spoke  about 
that  letter  that  she  seemed  very  flushed  and  excited? — Yes. 
216 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Did  you  mean  to  suggest  that  she  was  not  talking  the  truth? — I 
firmly  believe,  and  have  done  all  along,  that  they  have  actually  received 
that  letter. 

And  there  are  three  of  them? — I  do  not  know  about  the  one  from 
Clapton.  I  am  talking  about  Mrs.  Frank  Vonderahe. 

Very  well,  you  think  that  she  had  it,  and  was  not  telling  the  truth? 
— My  opinion  is  that  they  have  had  that  letter,  and  that  they  have 
torn  it  up  after  the  funeral. 

And  that  in  what  she  said  in  the  witness-box  she  has  perjured  her- 
self?— Well,  I  am  contradicting  her. 

As  I  understand,  the  letter  was  written  on  mourning  paper  just  like 
the  one  on  which  the  typewritten  copy  has  been  produced? — It  was  the 
exact  same. 

These  happened  to  be  the  only  two  sheets  of  mourning  paper  you  had 
in  your  possession  at  that  date? — Yes.  If  you  look  at  that  paper  again 
it  might  have  been  stained  through  age.  It  had  been  standing  in  the 
desk  pocket  for  a  considerable  time. 

Just  two  sheets? — Yes. 

You  have  told  us  that  that  letter  was  posted  at  some  time,  or  you 
gave  it  out  to  be  posted  at  some  time,  in  the  afternoon  ? — It  was  very  near 
5  o'clock,  because  I  told  my  daughter  distinctly  I  wanted  to  catch  the 
5  o'clock  post — I  wanted  them  to  get  it  that  night  as  the  funeral  was  so 
early  on  the  Saturday. 

There  were  plenty  of  members  of  your  family  able  to  go  round  to 
Evershot  Road  in  the  afternoon? — Yes,  but  I  would  not  send  one  of  my 
family  round  there  after  the  way  my  daughter  had  been  treated. 

That  is  the  slamming  of  the  door  against  her? — Yes,  certainly.  Why 
should  my  daughter  be  treated  like  that?  My  daughter  went  round  to 
ask  if  there  were  any  letters  for  Miss  Barrow,  and  they  said  "No,"  and 
slammed  the  door  in  her  face.  Miss  Barrow  cried  about  it.  My 
daughter  came  in  very  much  upset.  I  said,  "  Don't  you  go  there  under 
any  circumstances  again."  I  told  Miss  Barrow,  and  I  asked  her  not 
to  send  my  daughter  round  to  that  house  again. 

But  there  was  your  father? — I  would  not  send  any  of  my  family  round 
after  that.  I  looked  upon  it  as  the  more  businesslike  way  to  drop  them 
a  line  for  them  to  inform  the  rest  of  the  relations  ;  and  if  they  felt  dis- 
posed to  come  to  the  funeral  they  could  do  so,  and  if  they  did  not  they 
could  stop  away. 

And  you  never  thought  of  sending  round  the  next  day,  or  even  the 
day  of  the  funeral,  to  know  whether  they  had  the  letter? — I  expect  they 
did  not  intend  to  come.  I  spoke  to  Smith  the  next  morning  about  it, 
and  said  the  relations  had  never  come. 

If  you  had  posted  that  letter,  according  to  you,  you  expected  them 
round  that  night,  and  they  did  not  come? — They  did  not  come  all  the 
next  day.  I  expected  when  I  posted  the  letter  that  they  would  get  the 
letter,  and  they  were  treating  the  matter  with  the  same  indifference  all 
the  time  as  they  had  treated  things  when  Miss  Barrow  lived  there. 

You  thought  they  were  living  at  200  yards  distance  away  ? — I  thought 
they  were  living  at  Evershot  Road.  I  could  not  say  the  distance,  as  I 
have  never  been  there. 

217 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Do  you  not  know  how  far  it  is? — I  think  it  is  the  next  street  to  me. 

So  although  you  had  expected  them  to  come  and  they  did  not 

come 1 — I  did  not  expect  them  to  come  ;  I  did  not  know  whether  they 

would  come  or  not. 

I  thought  you  said  you  expected  them  round  that  evening? — Yes, 
certainly,  if  they  were  coming — if  they  intended  to  come  to  the  funeral. 
They  did  not  come,  and  I  thought  they  would  come  on  the  Friday,  and 
they  did  not  come  on  the  Friday. 

You  found  on  the  Saturday  they  did  not  come? — Then  the  arrange- 
ment stood  good  that  was  made  temporarily. 

Did  it  occur  to  you  to  send  Ernie  round  before  she  died  to  tell  them? 
— Ernie  was  going  to  the  same  school  as  the  two  boys.  I  did  not  know 
whether  they  were  not  in  the  same  class.  I  do  not  know  whether  he 
told  the  boys  or  not. 

Ernie  on  the  morning  of  the  14th,  as  we  know,  was  sent  to  Southend 
by  you  Before  he  knew  anything  about  the  death? — Yes. 

He  was  sent  off  there  with  your  sons? — Yes.  I  only  sent  the  one 
boy  to  look  after  them — Freddie,  he  was  fifteen. 

Have  you  a  son  seventeen? — Yes,  but  he  is  with  the  Daimler  Motor 
Company. 

Does  he  not  live  in  the  house  with  you? — Yes,  but  he  is  seldom  in; 
I  see  very  little  of  him.  There  is  one  other  point  I  would  like  to  put 
about  the  Vonderahes  coming  about — it  is  only  that  they  said  in  evidence 
that  they  saw  the  windows  wide  open.  That  was  only  on  the  three  days — 
Thursday,  Friday,  and  Saturday — that  our  windows  were  open.  Every- 
body in  the  neighbourhood  knew  about  the  death ;  the  shopkeepers  all 
knew  about  it ;  the  undertaker  drove  up  to  my  home  in  his  trap ;  there 
was  no  secret  about  it.  They  only  lived  a  few  yards  away.  The  windows 
were  wide  open,  and  the  windows  were  not  closed  till  we  came  back  from 
the  funeral,  and  the  Yonderahes  have  said  that  they  have  seen  the  windows 
were  open.  That  is  why  I  think  they  got  the  letter. 

Do  you  not  think  that  is  because  they  found  out  these  facts  and  they 
came  to  make  inquiries? — But  they  did  not  come  till  23rd  September. 
The  windows  would  be  closed  on  the  17th. 

On  23rd  November  there  was  an  inquest,  and  I  want  to  ask  you 
about  this  statement  that  you  made  on  the  4th  December  to  Inspector 
Ward.  You  remember  when  he  arrested  you  you  asked  him  if  he  was 
going  to  arrest  your  wife  as  well? — I  was  crossing  over  the  Tollington 
Park  towards  my  home  when  two  gentlemen  I  saw  talking  together  came 
up  behind  me.  One  got  hold  of  each  wrist.  They  said,  "  We  are  police 
officers;  we  arrest  you."  I  said,  "What  for?"  "Well,"  they  said, 
"  Chief  Inspector  Ward  of  Scotland  Yard  will  be  here  in  a  moment  or 
two;  he  will  tell  you.  You  know  him,  do  you  not?"  I  said  "No." 
Just  then  Dectective-Inspector  Ward  came  up.  He  said,  "  Come  round 
the  corner;  I  will  let  you  know  why  you  are  arrested."  I  said,  "  I  am 
only  three  doors  from  home;  can  you  not  take  me  home  and  let  my  wife 
and  family  know  that  I  am  arrested?"  He  said,  "Oh,  you  need  not 
worry  about  that.  You  will  see  your  wife  down  at  the  station."  I 
said,  "Are  you  going  to  arrest  her,  too?"  He  said,  "Yes."  All 
that  time  we  were  round  in  Fonthill  Road,  just  past  the  letter  box,  and 
218 


Evidence  for  Defence, 

Frederick  H.  Sedtion 

Dectective-Inspector  Ward  said,  "  You  are  arrested  for  the  murder — 
for  the  wilful  murder  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  by  poison — by  arsenic,"  or 
"by  arsenic  poisoning,"  or  something  like  that.  I  said,  "Wilful 
murder  1  Absurd !  Why  none  of  my  family  has  ever  been — it  is  the 
first  of  my  family  that  has  ever — that  such  a  charge  has  been  made 
against,"  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  we  started  to  walk  to  the 
station. 

Now,  let  me  put  to  you  what  Chief  Inspector  Ward  has  said  in  the 
witness-box  here.  "  Absurd!  What  a  terrible  charge.  Wilful  murder? 
It  is  the  first  of  our  family  that  has  ever  been  accused  of  such  a  crime  "1 — 
That  is  right,  those  are  the  words. 

That  is  what  you  did  say? — Yes. 

And  then  it  goes  on,  "  Are  you  going  to  arrest  my  wife  as  well  "? — 
No,  not  then.  I  said,  "  Can  you  not  take  me  home  and  let  my  wife  and 
family  know  that  I  am  arrested?  "  He  said,  "You  need  not  worry  about 
that,  you  will  see  your  wife  at  the  station;  I  am  coming  back  for  her." 
I  said,  "Are  you  going  to  arrest  her  as  well?"  That  I  swear  before 
God  is  the  words  that  took  place,  and  I  have  been  waiting  the  oppor- 
tunity to  get  into  this  box  for  to  relate  the  true  words  that  were  spoken 
on  this  occasion. 

All  the  statements  that  you  are  making  are  statements  before  God? — 
Yes,  sir,  I  recognise  that.  I  want  to  emphasise  that,  because  I  do  not 
look  upon  it  as  material — it  does  not  make  me  innocent  or  guilty,  but  I 
want  the  truth,  and  I  was  very  much  upset  at  the  North  London  Police 
Court  when  the  evidence  was  given  and  the  two  detective-sergeants  that 
arrested  me  were  allowed  to  be  in  Court  to  hear  it.  If  they  had  not 
been  in  Court  they  could  have  been  cross-examined  on  this  point. 

I  will  read  you  the  statement  and  you  can  tell  me ? — There  is 

nothing  hurt  me  more  than  that  since  my  arrest.* 

Listen  to  the  question? — Do  you  think  a  man  with  five  children  would 
want  to  see  his  wife  arrested  and  a  baby  ill  which  had  been  to  the  doctor 
that  day? 

It  is  not  suggested  that  you  wanted  to  see  your  wife  arrested? — Yes, 
it  is  suggested,  "Are  you  going  to  arrest  my  wife,  too?"  That  was 
my  greatest  concern.  It  has  been  the  greatest  trial  of  my  life  since  she 
has  been  arrested,  and  we  have  neglected  the  five  children. 

Why  did  you  think  that  your  wife  was  going  to  be  arrested? — Only 
by  what  he  said. 

Who? — Detective-Inspector  Ward  said  he  was  going  back  for  her.  I 
said,  "  Are  you  going  for  her  now?  "  He  said,  "  I  am  not  going  to 
let  you  know  what  I  am  going  to  do."  I  said,  "  I  am  concerned  to 
know." 

He  has  been  in  the  witness-box  already? — Yes,  well,  I  am  in  the 
witness-box,  too.  I  sat  up  till  2  o'clock  in  the  morning  waiting  for  her 
in  the  cell — in  the  police  cell. 

Listen  to  what  I  am  going  to  read  to  you,  that  no  suggestion  was 
ever  made  to  you  that  your  wife  was  going  to  be  arrested? — What  I  have 
just  told  you  now  is  the  exact  words  that  took  place ;  and  at  the  station, 
when  I  sent  for  Mr.  Saint,  the  solicitor,  I  said,  "  You  had  better  wait, 

*  Seddon  again  exhibited  strong  indignation  here. — ED. 

219 


Trial   of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

because  he  has  gone  to  arrest  my  wife,  too,  and  you  had  better  wait  to 
see  her." 

Did  you  go  on  to  say  this,  "  If  not,  I  would  like  to  give  her  a 
message  from  me"? — That  was  at  the  station  when  I  asked  him,  "Are 
you  going  for  her  now?  "  He  said,  "  I  am  not  going  to  tell  you  what 
I  am  going  to  do."  I  said,  "  I  am  concerned  to  know,  because  I  want 
a  woman  to  look  after  my  home/'  and  a  sergeant  took  the  name  and 
address  of  this  woman — it  was  Mrs.  Brumswich,  in  Tavistock  Place, 
Holloway  Road. 

Did  you  say,  "  Have  they  found  arsenic  in  her  body  "? — Yes,  he  said 
he  had.  I  said,  "Have  you  found  arsenic  in  her  body?  "  He  said  yes. 

He  had  not  said  to  you  about  arsenic  in  her  body ;  what  he  told  you 
was  that  you  were  arrested  for  arsenic  poisoning? — Arsenic  poisoning,  yes 
— that  is  where  it  would  be,  in  the  body,  would  it  not? 

Did  you  not  put  the  question,  "  Have  they  found  arsenic  in  her 
body"?— Yes. 

And  then  he  said  "  Yes  "? — Yes,  I  knew  they  had  had  a  post-mortem 
— it  had  been  taken. 

"She  has  not  done  this  herself?"  That  was  put  in  the  form  of 
a  question? — I  do  not  know  whether  I  said  that  or  not. 

"  It  was  not  carbolic  acid,  was  it,  as  there  was  some  in  her  room  "  ? — 
Yes. 

"  And  Sanitas  is  not  poison  "? — Yes,  I  said  that. 

That  is  mentioning  the  two  things  that  were  in  her  room? — Yes,  I 
told  him  that  there  was  carbolic  in  her  room. 

Did  you  say  this  to  Detective-Sergeant  Hayman  when  you  were  taken 
to  Hornsey  Road  Police  Station  with  Sergeant  Cooper?  Did  you  say, 
"Poisoning  by  arsenic — what  a  charge"? — Yes. 

Did  you  say,  "  Of  course,  I  have  had  all  her  money  affairs  through 
my  hands,  and  this  means  Police  Court  proceedings  and  trial  before  a 
jury,  but  I  think  I  can  prove  my  innocence  "? — I  did  not  say  it  exactly 
in  those  words,  but  still  that  is  the  substance  of  it. 

"  I  know  Miss  Barrow  had  carbolic  in  her  room  "? — Yes. 

"But  there  is  no  arsenic  in  carbolic"? — I  do  not  know  whether  I 
said,  "  But  there  is  no  arsenic  in  carbolic."  I  said,  "  I  know  she  had 
carbolic  in  her  room."  I  do  not  remember  saying  that  there  is  no 
arsenic  in  carbolic. 

You  heard  Detective-Sergeant  Hayman  say  that  at  the  Police  Court, 
did  you  not? — Yes.  What  I  considered  the  most  unfair  at  the  Police 
Court  was  that  the  two  detective-sergeants  would  have  been  there  while 
Chief  Inspector  Ward  gave  his  evidence  of  arrest.  That  I  consider  was 
most  unfair  to  me  as  a  prisoner  on  a  grave  charge. 

Is  exhibit  39,  a  document  headed  "  £10  cash  found  at  Miss  Barrow's 
death,"  in  your  handwriting? — Yes. 

It  is  signed  by  you? — Yes. 

Does  it  purport  to  account  for  what  was  done  with  the  amount? — 
Yes. 

The  first  item  is,  "  Board  for  Ernest  Grant,  two  weeks  at  10s.,  £1  "t 
— That  was  during  her  illness ;  he  boarded  with  us  during  the  illness — • 
principally  that. 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

"  Fourteen  days  at  Is.  a  day  due  to  Maggie,  14s."? — Yes. 

"  Seven  shillings  and  sixpence,  tips  to  bearers  and  gravediggers,  and 
£1  funeral,  £4  7s.  6d."?— Yes. 

"  Doctor's  bill,  £1  5s."     That,  I  suppose,  is  Dr.  Sworn? — Yes. 

"  Ernie's  holiday,  Southend-on-Sea,  £1  2s.  6d.  ;  pocket  money,  2s.  ; 
fare,  Is.  9d.  ;  death  probate  certificate,  3s.  7d."? — That  was  for  the 
probate. 

What? — I  took  that  to  Somerset  House  for  the  probate. 

Did  you  get  probate  ? — No ;  this  was  the  certificate  for  the  applying 
for  probate. 

That  means  a  death  certificate,  I  suppose? — Well,  it  says,  "Death 
probate  certificate  "  here. 

"  Inventory,  £1  Is." — that  is  the  inventory  for  £16  14s.  6d.  ? — Yes. 

"  Woman  for  laying  out  and  cleaning  room,  5s.";  is  that  Mrs.  Rutt? 
—Yes. 

"Suit  of  clothes  and  pants  extra  for  Ernie,  13s."? — The  total  is 
£11  Is.  10£d.,  and  the  amount  found  was  £10. 

That  included,  as  I  have  just  pointed  out,  Ernie's  holiday  at  Southend 
and  a  suit  of  clothes  for  him? — Yes. 

When  did  you  make  that  up? — I  think  it  was  about  the  time  of  the 
inquest,  for  Mr.  Saint. 

Had  you  made  up  no  account  till  then  ? — I  had  a  note ;  1  had  not 
drafted  it  out  in  this  form. 

Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  about  the  statement  you  made  as  to  the 
cash  you  had.  The  whole  of  your  statement  accounting  for  the  money 
that  you  had  paid  out  on  15th  September  depends  upon  your  statement 
that  you  had  £220  in  gold,  does  it  not? — Yes. 

Have  you  any  document  of  any  kind  to  show  that  you  had  £220  in 
gold? — No,  but  I  think  there  is  ample  evidence. 

How  long  was  the  wardrobe  business  carried  on? — Just  on  twelve 
months. 

Is  it  from  February,  1909,  until  the  beginning  of  1910? — Yes,  I 
suppose  it  would  be. 

When  Mr.  Naylor  and  Mr.  Wilson  were  present  did  you  ever  make 
any  statement  to  them  about  how  much  gold  there  was  in  the  bag? — I  do 
not  think  I  told  them  how  much  there  was.  I  told  him  that  if  he  came 
across  any  wardrobe  stocks  for  sale  Mrs.  Seddon  was  prepared  to  purchase 
up  to  any  amount. 

From  whom? — From  Mr.  Naylor;  he  is  an  auctioneer  and  gets  about 
a  bit.  I  said  that  if  he  knew  of  anybody  that  had  any  ladies'  wardrobes 
to  dispose  of  she  was  prepared  to  buy  for  cash,  and  I  showed  him  that  we 
kept  plenty  of  ready  cash  on  hand  for  the  purpose.  It  was  necessary, 
because  business  people  came  into  the  shop  to  sell  their  wardrobes. 

The  amount  you  have  told  us  was  £100  or  £130,  or  it  might  be 
£150? — I  could  not  say  for  certain  at  that  date.  I  know  what  I  came 
out  with,  but  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  there  was  at  any  particular 
date ;  it  was  accumulating. 

It  was  not  as  much  as  Mr.  Naylor  said  in  the  witness-box,  about 
£200? — There  was  not  that  much. 

Then,  according  to  you,  he  must  have  been  mistaken  when  he  said 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

you  told  him  it  was  about  £200? — I  may  have  done  so,  I  could  not  say 
for  sure. 

Your  own  statement  about  it  on  Saturday  was  that  it  might  be  £100 
to  £130,  or  perhaps  £150,  but  not  so  much  as  they,  that  is  Naylor  and 
Wilson,  said.  That  is  your  own  statement? — It  certainly  was  not  £200. 
Even  if  I  told  him  it  was  £200,  it  would  not  be  true.  I  would  not  have 
so  much  as  that;  I  may  have  said,  in  a  jocular  way,  "  There  is  a  couple 
of  hundred  here  at  any  time  to  buy  stock,"  or  something  like  that. 

You  sold  the  whole  of  the  stock  at  the  beginning  of  1910? — Yes. 

And  gave  up  business? — That  is  it. 

And  you  got  £30  for  it? — Yes. 

Did  you  place  that  £30  in  the  Post  Office  Savings  Bank  on  deposit? — 
Yes. 

To  carry  interest? — Yes. 

Why  did  you  not  put  all  the  money  you  had  into  the  Post  Office 
Savings  Bank  to  carry  interest? — Because  I  wanted  to  keep  it  on  hand 
for  the  purpose  of  paying  off  the  mortgage  when  desired.  Also  Mr. 
Wainwright,  the  estate  agent,  who  had  acted  in  the  sale  of  that  property, 
had  suggested  to  me  the  possibility  of  some  more  bargains  coming  along, 
as  owing  to  the  papers  that  Lloyd  George  had  been  sending  out,  I  think, 
or  something  like  that — something  about  land  returns — property  was  down  ; 
it  was  cheap  at  the  time. 

There  was  no  difficulty  in  drawing  money  out  of  the  bank  if  you 
wanted  it  at  any  time,  was  there? — But  my  wife  could  not  have  the 
same  facility  if  anything  happened  to  me.  She  would  have  to  wait  to 
take  out  letters  of  administration,  or  wait  for  probate. 

Had  you  made  a  will  at  the  time? — No,  it  was  not  in  existence  then. 
I  had  made  a  will  a  long  time  before  that,  but  I  tore  it  up  when  my 
wife  went  away.  You  understand  the  business  was  one  which  a 
gentleman  could  not  very  well  manage,  it  being  a  wardrobe 
business,  but  I  used  to  keep  the  books  for  the  wife  at  the  week-end ; 
on  the  Sunday  I  made  them  up  for  her.  I  also  used  to  label  the  stock 
for  her  in  lot  numbers,  so  I  could  at  any  time  go  through  the  stock  and 
see  how  the  business  stood.  I  had  had  differences  with  my  wife  regarding 
the  lot  numbers  getting  off  the  stock,  so  I  could  not  recognise  what  had 
been  paid  for  it.  These  differences  in  business  caused  a  family  quarrel 
between  us,  and  I  was  going  to  throw  the  books  behind  the  fire.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  I  did  mutilate  them  in  consequence,  and  I  never  kept 
the  books  after. 

What  has  become  of  those  books? — Some  of  them  are  in  existence. 

Have  you  got  them? — I  believe  my  solicitor  has  got  them.  I  believe 
Detective-Inspector  Ward  has  seen  them  at  home. 

Will  these  books  show  in  their  present  condition  the  amount  of  takings 
in  the  business? — Yes. 

And  the  amounts  spent  in  the  stock  ? — Not  all  of  it. 

Will  you  produce  the  books,  please? 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  produce  them  just  as  they  came  to  us.  (Four 
books  were  handed  to  the  witness.) 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Would  those  books  say  what  amount 
has  been  expended  on  the  stock  which  was  sold  for  the  £30  at  the  beginning 

222 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

of  1910? — I  do  not  think  there  is  a  summary  of  the  stock  sold.  There 
is  an  account  of  the  week's  takings,  week  by  week,  from  6th  March, 
1909,  to  20th  November,  1909. 

Would  it  also  show  the  week's  expenditure? — No;  it  would  have  to 
be  taken  on  an  average  from  the  figures  I  have  got  here. 

What  average  do  you  make  the  figures  you  have  got  there  in  expendi- 
ture ;  I  do  not  want  it  accurately,  but  about? — I  have  here  stock  purchased, 
total  £132  6s.  Id. 

For  how  long  is  that? — This  shows  the  date,  8th  May,   1909. 

Does  that  show  what  the  sales  were  also? — Yes. 

What  were  the  sales  up  to  8th  May,  1909?— From  April,  1909,  to 
8th  May,  1909,  stock  that  had  cost  £43  15s.  4d.  had  sold  for  £85 
18s.  7|d.,  yielding  profit  in  eight  weeks  of — no,  yielding  a  profit  in  four 
months,  of  £42  Is.  3Jd. — no,  not  so  long  as  that — no,  from  20th  March. 

Is  there  any  account  in  the  books  which  will  show  how  much  money 
there  was  at  the  end  of  the  business? — I  give  you  this  here.  I  have  got 
it  here  now.  Total,  eight  weeks,  less  forfeit,  £43  15s.  3£d. ;  stock  sold 
yielded  £85  18s.  7Jd.,  showing  a  profit  of  £42  Is.  3|d.  for  the  eight 
weeks. 

You  have  given  an  explanation  about  the  purchase  of  63  Tollington 
Park  and  as  to  your  payments.  Summarising  what  you  have  said,  you 
paid  £15  deposit  by  cheque  to  Mr.  Wainwright,  and  you  sold  £100  Cardiff 
stock,  as  you  have  said,  for  about  £84f  ? — £85  odd,  I  think,  according  to 
my  bank  book ;  that  made  up  the  £100  margin. 

And  you  got  a  mortgage  of  £220? — Yes,  and  that  paid  for  the 
house. 

What  rate  of  interest  were  you  paying  on  the  mortgage? — 5  per  cent. 

What  rate  of  interest  were  you  getting  on  the  money  deposited  in 
the  Post  Office  ? — 2 £  per  cent. 

According  to  that  view  you  were  paying  5  per  cent,  on  the  £220 
mortgage,  whilst  you  had  £220  gold  in  the  house? — Yes;  I  did  the  same 
with  the  Temperance  Permanent  Building  Society  eight  years  ago. 

That  £220  was  idle  money?  It  was  not  bringing  in  any  income? — 
It  was  very  valuable  to  my  wife  if  anything  happened  to  me. 

What  was  the  difficulty  about  this  mortgage? — Supposing  you  had 
got  your  mortgage  for  £220  on  the  property,  there  would  be  notice 
before  you  had  to  pay  off  the  mortgage?  I  don't  think  they  would  call 
upon  you  to  pay  off  the  mortgage  you  have  got  over  a  term  of  years — 
fifteen  years. 

How  many  years  had  you  it  over? — I  forget  whether  it  was  fifteen 
or  twenty  years. 

The  mortgage  had  been  given  at  the  beginning  of  1910? — Yes. 

So  that  you  could  not  be  called  upon  by  the  society  to  pay  off  the 
mortgage  for  some  period  of  fifteen  or  twenty  years  ? — I  could  manage  to 
pay  off  the  mortgage  and  everything  else  while  I  was  earning ;  but  in 
the  event  of  my  decease  my  wife  would  not  have  the  same  income  coming, 
and  it  was  a  good  big  house,  and  she  would  let  off — that  is  what  she 
had  done  in  Isledon  Road — to  boarders,  and  she  could  make  a  living  that 
way. 

223 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Do  you  not  think  that  would  be  just  as  available  to  her  if  it  had  been 
in  your  bank? — No,  I  do  not — not  to  her;  it  would  be  to  me. 

What  date  was  it  that  you  and  your  wife  separated? — 3rd  January, 
1910;  the  time  that  the  shop  was  disposed  of. 

How  long  were  you  separated? — Four  weeks ;  it  might  have  been  five. 

I  must  ask  you,  what  was  the  cause  of  the  separation? — I  did  not 
know  it  was  necessary  for  to  introduce  domestic  affairs  into  this  charge. 

The  stock  we  know  was  sold  for  £30.  Now,  how  much  money  was 
there  in  the  business.  Is  there  any  account  which  will  show  that? — 
Only  up  to  that  date;  there  is  £132  6s.  Id.  at  this  date,  8th  May,  1909. 

1909?— Yes. 

I  am  asking  when  the  business  was  sold? — No,  I  have  only  got  an 
account  of  the  takings  up  to  20th  November,  week  by  week. 

You  told  us  the  books  were  mutilated? — Yes. 

Was  that  at  the  beginning  of  1910? — No,  it  was  somewhere  between 
this  date  that  I  stopped  keeping  the  books  and  the  time  my  wife  went 
away. 

The  time  your  wife  went  away  was  the  beginning  of  1910,  you  have 
told  us? — Yes,  January,  but  then  we  had  a  quarrel  over  the  business  for 
two  or  three  months. 

Why  did  you  mutilate  the  books? — I  did  it  in  a  fit  of  temper.  I 
have  used  the  books  since ;  when  I  have  wanted  any  spare  paper  I  have 
torn  pages  out.  Another  thing,  it  is  over  two  years  ago,  and  I  did  not 
think  they  would  ever  be  further  required  any  more ;  I  had  done  with 
the  business  entirely ;  I  had  sold  out,  and  it  is  over  two  years  ago.  I 
half  thought  of  putting  them  behind  the  fire. 

Now,  I  want  you  to  tell  me — never  mind  about  the  books  for  the 

moment ? — I  have  got  over  £300  takings  here  from  6th  March  to 

November. 

Now,  will  you  tell  me  about  the  £220  that  you  have  spoken  of?  Did 
you  represent  that  it  was  a  mere  coincidence  that  on  15th  September  and 
18th  September  you  were  dealing  with  £155  in  gold  on  your  own  admission? 
— Because  I  was  going  away  on  my  holidays  ;  it  was  not  safe  for  me  to  go 
away  for  fourteen  days  on  my  holiday^  and  leave  it  on  hand. 

You  realise  that  you  dealt  on  15th  September  and  18th  September 
with  £155  in  sovereigns? — Yes,  what  I  kept  on  hand  for  the  purpose  of 
paying  off  the  mortgage  should  occasion  require;  I  took  it  down  to  the 
very  same  building  society,  and  put  it  there  in  shares  for  the  very  same 
purpose. 

And  so  you  could  have  done  at  any  time  during  the  whole  of  1910 
or  1911? — Yes,  I  could  have  done. 

But  you  only  dealt  with  this  gold  in  this  way  on  15th  September  and 
18th  September? — Because  I  was  going  away.  It  was  perfectly  safe  in 
the  house  while  I  was  about. 

You  had  been  away  before? — I  had  only  been  away  for  four  days,  and 
there  was  somebody  at  home  then ;  my  father  was  there. 

You  were  away  in  August  of  that  year? — Only  for  the  Bank  Holiday, 
but  all  the  family  were  going  away  on  this  occasion. 

The  safest  place  for  it  would  have  been  in  the  bank? — I  put  it  in  the 
bank ;  I  put  some  of  it  in  the  Post  Office,  some  of  it  on  current  account, 
224 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

and  the  rest  I  invested  in  shares  in  the  building  society  where  I  had  the 
mortgage.  I  could  have  paid  the  mortgage  when  I  got  £1600  in  my 
•hands  after  selling  the  stock;  I  had  £1519  in  my  hands  after  I  had  sold 
the  stock ;  I  could  have  paid  the  mortgage  then. 

Do  you  represent  that  this  statement  of  yours  about  the  £220  by  a 
mere  coincidence  is  so  close  to  the  £216  which  Miss  Barrow  had  drawn 
out? — But  there  is  not,  there  is  only  £170.  I  have  not  got  £220  on 
hand;  I  have  only  got  £170. 

You  had  had  £220  on  hand? — Oh,  yes,  I  know  I  had,  for  the  mort- 
gage when  I  first  went  into  the  house. 

You  had  begun  to  draw  on  that  money  although  you  wanted  to  keep 
it  for  the  mortgage  in  case  anything  happened  ? — I  had  broken  into  it,  but 
still  I  had  got  £170  in  hand. 

Are  those  receipts  torn  from  a  book? — Yes. 

Have  you  got  the  counterfoils  ? — I  believe  they  are  in  existence. 

Did  you  fill  up  the  counterfoils? — I  cannot  remember. 

Is  there  any  reason  why  you  should  not? — It  is  not  necessary ;  I 
might  have  done ;  I  am  not  sure. 

These  are  the  only  two  counterfoil  books  that  have  been  found 
(handed)? — These  are  not  them. 

Those  are  the  two  books  of  counterfoils  that  have  been  found.  Do 
you  suggest  there  was  another? — Yes,  certainly. 

Two  others,  then,  according  to  you? — Yes.  These  are  not  the  same 
size ;  these  are  not  the  same  print. 

Do  you  know  what  has  become  of  them? — Yes,  they  are  in  the  house ; 
they  were  when  I  was  arrested. 

I  see  there  are  a  number  of  counterfoils  here  which  are  blank  with 
receipts  torn  out? — Is  that  the  rent  book? 

No,  the  cash  receipt  book.  So  far  as  I  can  see  from  the  book  there 
are  seven? — Yes.  I  have  no  recollection  of  doing  that. 

Just  look  at  the  end  of  the  book.  Read  it  out  aloud? — "  Life  annuity, 
January  2nd,  1911.  Received  from  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  the  sum  of 
£10,  being  £6  monthly  allowance  as  arranged  in  consideration  for  the 
transfer  of  £1600  India  3i  per  cent,  stock,  and  £4  monthly  allowance  as 
arranged  in  consideration  for  assignment  of  leases  of  properties  situated 
202  High  Street,  Camden  Town,  N.,  Buck's  Head  public-house  and  the 
barber's  shop  adjoining  known  as  No.  1  Buck  Street." 

Do  you  know  anything  about  that  receipt? — I  think  that  was  kept 
as  a  copy. 

Does  it  appear  to  have  had  a  stamp  upon  it? — Yes,  it  looks  as  if  it 
had  a  stamp  on  it.  I  know  why  this  was  done. 

Tell  us? — Because  it  required  two  separate  receipts,  and  I  was  making 
this  all  up  in  one  £10.  This  was  the  first  receipt  drafted  out,  and  you 
will  find  for  January  on  that  date  two  separate  ones — £4  and  £6. 

That  is  in  that  book  which  contains  several  counterfoils  blank? — Yes, 
but  this  is  not  the  book  which  was  continued  to  be  used  for  it. 

Do  you  know  what  has  become  of  it? — It  is  in  the  house.  I  had 
four  of  these. 

It  has  not  been  found? — I  had  four  of  these.  This  was  used  for 
another  purpose. 

p  225 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

I  notice  that  on  that  counterfoil  the  receipt  is  not  filled  in? — No. 

But  it  appears  to  have  been  carried  out  and  stamped? — No,  it  was 
not  carried  out. 

It  was  stamped? — I  put  the  stamp  on  it.  Well,  then,  I  decided  that 
it  required  two  separate  receipts  for  £6  and  .£4. 

When  did  you  decide  that? — After  I  had  written  it  out  and  put  the 
stamp  on  it  when  I  was  going  to  pay  her  the  first  £10.  Very  likely  the 
same  stamp  that  has  come  off  this  is  on  one  of  them.  The  only  difference 
is  that  this  is  a  combined  receipt,  and  the  others  are  separate.  (Two 
counterfoil  receipt  books  were  put  in.) 

Was  your  daughter  Maggie  in  London  on  26th  August,  1911? — Yes. 

According  to  what  we  have  heard,  on  the  6th  December,  1911,  she 
went  to  purchase  fly-papers  at  Mr.  Price's,  the  chemist? — I  have  heard  so 
in  evidence;  I  was  under  arrest. 

Were  you  consulted  about  it  at  all? — Yes,  Mr.  Saint  had  mentioned 
it  to  me. 

Was  that  before  or  after  your  arrest? — He  consulted  me  the  night  of 
my  arrest. 

Did  you  then  know  these  fly-papers  contained  arsenic? — I  did  not 
know  for  certain ;  Mr.  Saint  had  suggested  to  me  that  they  did. 

Had  you  ever  seen  a  packet  of  these  fly-papers? — No. 

Did  you  know  they  were  called  "  arsenical  fly-papers  "? — No. 

Did  you  know  that  they  were  poisonous  ? — I  knew  they  were  poisonous 
to  insects. 

And  to  children? — I  did  not  know  that. 

You  have  said  that  you  saw  them  in  her  room  1 — Yes. 

When  first? — The  night  that  the  will  was  signed. 

How  often  did  you  see  fly-papers  in  her  room? — I  saw  them  the  night 
the  will  was  signed,  and  I  saw  them  the  night  she  died. 

Were  you  in  the  habit  of  using  them? — No,  I  have  never  seen  them 
in  the  house  before — only  the  sticky  ones  that  the  flies  stick  to. 

Had  you  been  in  the  habit  of  using  the  sticky  ones? — We  had  used 
the  sticky  ones. 

You  began  to  use  the  arsenic  papers,  according  to  you,  about  llth 
September? — I  did  not  begin  to  use  any  at  all.  I  did  not  know  they 
were  there  until  I  was  told  about  them. 

Was  llth  September  the  first  time  that  you  had  seen  arsenic  fly-papers 
used  in  the  your  house  ? — I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  seen  them 
before. 

Have  you  ever  heard  of  poisoning  by  arsenic  taken  from  fly-papers? 
— Yes,  since  I  have  been  arrested. 

Do  you  know  that  two-thirds  of  a  grain  of  arsenic,  according  to  the 
evidence  of  Dr.  Willcox,  was  found  in  the  stomach  and  intestines  of  this 
lady  when  he  examined  her  two  months  after  her  death? — I  have  heard 
that;  I  cannot  remember  the  exact  amount  that  he  found,  but  something 
like  that. 

I  am  understating  it,  really  it  is  '63  in  the  stomach  and  "11  in  the 

intestines — that  is  the  exact  amount.     It  is  '74  grains,  which  is  just  upon 

three-quarters  of  a  grain.     Can  you  account  for  the  arsenic  having  got  into 

her  stomach  and  intestines? — It's  a  Chinese  puzzle  to  me. 

226 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Did  you  know  how  it  was  that 
•"fly-papers  came  to  be  brought  into  Miss  Barrow's  room  at  all? — Yes.  Mrs. 
Seddon  told  me  that  she  had  purchased  fly-papers  to  satisfy  Miss  Barrow, 
as  she  complained  of  the  heat  in  the  room  and  the  flies,  and  that  is  why 
she  had  got  up  out  of  bed  and  gone  into  this  little  room — that  Miss  Barrow 
had  asked  for  them  to  be  purchased,  and,  as  she  was  leaving  the  room,  she 
says,  "  Don't  get  the  sticky  ones,  they  are  dirty;  get  those  you  put  water 
on." 

So  far  as  you  know,  what  we  call  fly-papers  that  had  water  put  upon 
them  had  never  been  used  in  your  house  before? — I  have  no  recollection. 

You  have  been  asked  if  you  can  account  for  the  fact  of  arsenic  having 
been  found,  as  it  has  been  found,  in  the  body  of  Miss  Barrow.  Is  there 
any  knowledge  of  your  own  which  will  enable  you  to  account  for  it — was 
there  anything  you  ever  did,  or  your  wife  ever  did,  to  account  for  any 
arsenic  being  found  in  the  body? — I  do  not  know  of  anything. 

What  is  the  date  of  the  letter  that  you  have  got  which  was  written  by 
Miss  Barrow  saying  she  did  not  wish  her  relatives  to  benefit  by  her  death? 
—I  believe  it  is  27th  March,  1911. 

The  learned  Attorney-General  has  made  a  point  that  when  Miss  Barrow 
came  to  you  she  had  £1600  worth  of  East  India  stock  and  the  Buck's  Head 
property,  and  that  when  she  died  there  was  practically  nothing  left  except 
£10.  Were  the  Buck's  Head  property  and  the  proceeds  of  the  £1600  East 
India  stock  still  intact,  and  are  they  still  intact? — Yes,  I  have  not  touched 
them,  only  improved  the  investment. 

You  had  got  absolute  possession  of  the  £1519  in  the  month  of  October? 
—Yes,  thirteen  months  before;  I  have  been  in  possession  all  throughout  the 
year,  receiving  the  rents;  I  had  full  possession  throughout  the  year  from 
October  and  January. 

At  any  rate,  you  had  had  possession  of  the  money  for  nearly  four 
months  before  you  began  to  pay  the  annuity  on  it? — Yes. 

Did  you  make  any  attempt  of  any  sort  or  shape  to  part  with  that 
£1500? — No;  I  could  have  paid  my  mortgage  off  with  the  £200  I  had. 

The  learned  Attorney-General  has  asked  you  about  the  document,  and 
I  want  to  see  if  I  understand  it.  There  was  a  document  prepared  without 
the  assistance  of  a  lawyer  purporting  to  carry  out  this  arrangement? — 
Yes. 

When  it  was  drawn  up  as  far  as  being  signed  and  witnessed,  you  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not  valid  and  it  was  destroyed,  and  you  went 
to  the  lawyer? — Yes,  this  was  because  she  would  not  have  solicitors,  and 
then  I  said  she  would  have  to  have  solicitors,  this  was  not  satisfactory,  and 
1  destroyed  it. 

Under  the  legal  effect  of  that  will  the  next-of-kin  would  still  have 
taken  any  property  that  she  might  have  left  other  than  the  property 
which  was  described  in  the  will? — That  was  not  enclosed  in  the  will. 

Because  there  was  intestacy  as  to  any  other  property  except  the 
property  comprised  in  the  will? — Yea. 

And  the  next-of-kin  are,  as  we  know,  the  Vonderahes? — I  do  not  know 
that  they  are;  they  said  they  were. 

Had  you  any  expectation  whatever  that  that  will  would  ever  become  a 

227 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

document  to  be  acted  upon? — I  did  not,  or  I  -would  not  have  had  anything 
to  do  with  it. 

Who  is  the  person  -who  is  making  the  claim  to  be  the  next-of-kin  in 
the  Probate  Court  at  the  present  time?  Is  that  one  of  the  Vonderahes  or 
anybody  else? — No,  it  is  an  absolutely  different  individual  altogether  named 
Barrow,  and  he  is  down  in  Bristol. 

Dr.  Sworn  has  told  us  that  she  could  not  hear  what  he  said.  Did  you 
ever  find  any  difficulty  in  making  her  hear? — None  whatever.  Why,  she 
could  hear  the  little  boy. 

Did  she  read  this  will  herself? — Yes,  I  read  it  to  her  first,  and  then 
she  read  it. 

Would  the  calling  in  of  a  solicitor  on  the  llth  to  make  this  will  have 
affected  your  position  in  any  way  at  all? — Oh,  no,  not  at  all. 

If  you  had  thought  she  was  going  to  die  you  would  have  called  in  a 
solicitor  for  your  own  protection? — Certainly  I  would,  because  the  will 
was  not  to  benefit  me  at  all,  and  it  was  no  advantage  to  me  to  draw  the 
will  up  or  have  anything  to  do  with  it;  in  fact,  it  would  have  protected  my 
interests  to  have  had  a  solicitor  to  do  so. 

As  to  this  £216,  you  told  my  learned  friend  that,  when  you  said 
something  to  her  about  it,  she  said  she  knew  what  to  do  with  it? — She 
said  she  knew  what  to  do  with  it.  She  never  spoke  to  me  for  over  a  week. 

Have  you  any  idea  what  she  has  done  with  it? — I  have  not  any  know- 
ledge. I  have  got  ideas,  but  that  is  all. 

Come  to  the  night  of  the  death.  My  learned  friend  has  asked  you  if 
you  expected  her  to  die  that  night,  and  you  said  you  did  not.  How  long 
prior  to  actual  death  did  Miss  Barrow  sleep  peacefully? — I  should  say 
about  a  couple  of  hours. 

How  long  did  the  ordinary  sleeping  take  place  before  you  heard  this 
heavy  breathing? — I  could  not  tell  for  certain;  I  am  judging  by  the  last 
time  I  went  upstairs,  I  reckoned  it  was  about  four  o'clock  in  the  morning 
vv-hen  we  put  her  back  into  bed. 

Did  she  sleep  peacefully  after  that? — Yes.  We  never  left  the  room 
after  that  occasion. 

She  died  about  6.30,  did  she  not? — About  6.20  or  6.15. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  understand  the  difference  between  a 
peaceful  sleep  and  a  snoring  sleep.  A  person  may  be  asleep  and  not  snore? 
— I  mean  she  was  in  a  good  heavy  sleep — a  sound  sleep ;  it  was  safe  for 
the  missus  to  leave  her. 

She  first  of  all  fell  asleep  quietly  and  afterwards  began  the  heavy 
snore? — Yes;  then  I  said  to  the  wife,  "It  will  be  quite  safe  to  leave  her 
now;  she  is  in  a  quiet  sound  sleep." 

You  say,  as  I  understand  from  that,  that  you  thought  when  she  was 
snoring  that  she  was  in  a  sound  sleep? — Yes,  and  that  the  wife  could  safely 
leave  her  now,  and  she  would  not  be  likely  to  waken,  but  she  said,  "  What 
is  the  good  of  doing  that?  It  only  means  going  down  and  getting  nicely 
settled  and  coming  up  again."  Then  we  thought  of  the  boy.  We  could 
not  leave  her  without  the  boy  was  with  her  again,  so  we  would  have  had 
to  call  the  boy  up  if  we  wanted  to  leave  her. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL,  HALL — Some  little  suggestion  is  made  with  regard 
to  your  smoking  your  pipe.     You  were  smoking  in  the  doorway? — Yes. 
228 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

I  think  you  told  us  before  that  the  smell  in  the  room  was  very,  very 
bad?— Oh,  yes. 

And  you  have  said  that  on  one  occasion  it  made  you  feel  very  sick? — 
That  is  why  I  stayed  outside  the  door  and  smoked  my  pipe  on  that  night. 

As  regards  this  question  of  the  £216,  the  Savings  Bank  people  who 
paid  that  out  would,  of  course,  keep  a  record  of  any  payment  out? — Most 
decidedly;  I  knew  it  was  on  record. 

In  answer  to  my  learned  friend,  you  said  you  had  expected  during  the 
case  that  some  document  might  be  found,  or  some  document  would  turn  up  ? 
— I  have  been  expecting  to  see  it  turn  up  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings. 

Is  there  any  important  document  that  you  know  of  missing  in  this 
case  ? — There  are  two  important  documents — the  duplicate  of  the  deed  which 
I  gave  the  coroner  and  the  annuity  certificate  that  I  gave  pinned  to  the 
deed. 

The  deed,  as  we  know,  was  executed  in  counterpart? — In  a  counterpart 
which  she  had. 

One  part  you  had  and  the  other  part  you  handed  to  Miss  Barrow? — 
I  had  the  original  and  she  had  the  other  that  I  paid  the  30s.  for. 

You  are  speaking  of  the  assignment? — Yes. 

The  assignment  that  you  have  got  is  the  one  from  her  to  you? — Yes. 

And  it  was  executed  in  duplicate,  and  the  counterpart  is  charged  for, 
as  we  know? — Yes,  I  paid  for  it  for  her. 

Did  you  hand  that  counterpart  to  her? — Yes,  I  did. 

Do  you  know  what  has  become  of  that? — No,  she  had  it. 

In  addition  to  that,  you  say  you  gave  her  a  memorandum  as  to  the 
annuity  that  was  payable? — Yes,  I  gave  it  her  typewritten,  and  signed  it 
over  a  sixpenny  stamp. 

That  has  disappeared? — It  is  with  that  document  wherever  it  is. 

The  document  that  was  handed  to  the  coroner  was  your  copy  of  the 
assignment  ? — Yes. 

But  there  was  a  copy  given  to  Miss  Barrow,  and  that  has  disappeared? 
—Yes. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNTLL — Is  that  the  typewritten  document  re  the 
£1600?— Yes. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — The  assignment  itself  shows  the  annuity  of 
the  £52  typewritten  document  over  a  sixpenny  stamp  acknowledging  your 
liability  in  respect  to  the  £1600? — Yes,  and  it  had  to  be  paid  by  my  heirs, 
executors,  administrators,  and  the  charge  on  my  estate. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  what  we  call  the  £6  annuity? — Yes. 

As  distinguished  from  the  £4  annuity,  which  was  re  the  brewery  and 
the  shop? — Exactly. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — With  regard  to  Hook,  I  think  you  told  my 
learned  friend  you  deny  what  he  states — he  is  not  telling  the  truth? — 
About  that  £420? 

Yes? — It  must  be  a  lie. 

And  did  you  say  to  Hook,  "  You  are  not  my  tenants.  Miss  Barrow 
1ms  <riveu  you  notice,  and  you  won't  go,  so  I  give  you  notice  to  go"? — Yes. 

When  you  used  the  words,  "  I  am  looking  after  her  interest,"  in 
what  meaning  were  you  using  those  words? — As  my  tenant,  to  protect 
her,  because  she  had  come  there  with  what  proved  to  be  undesirable 

229 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Frederick  H.  Seddon 

people,  and  she  wanted  to  remain,  and  she  wanted  them  to  get  out,  and 
they  would  not  get  out,  and  naturally  she  looked  to  me,  as  the  landlord, 
to  protect  her.  You  see,  they  had  threatened  to  take  the  boy  as  well, 
and  she  appealed  to  me  to  save  him  for  her. 

There  is  one  other  question  about  another  matter,  with  regard  to 
the  alteration  of  the  ring  and  watch.  You  went  to  the  jeweller's,  Mr. 
Wright?— Yes. 

As  he  has  told  us,  he  knew  you,  and  he  had  your  name  and  address? 
— Yes,  I  took  them  to  this  man,  who  did  know  me. 

You  had  dealt  with  him  some  time? — Yes. 

So  there  was  no  possibility,  or  any  idea,  of  concealing  your  identity? 
— No,  and  he  did  anolher  ring  for  me  previous  to  that. 

This  gold  watch,  the  diamond  ring,  and  the  articles  that  were  given 
to  your  girl,  never  belonged  to  the  Grants  as  far  as  you  know  ? — Miss 
Barrow  said  they  did  not.  What  she  gave  us  she  said  was  her  own 
family's,  but  the  rest  in  her  trunk  belonged  to  the  Grants,  excepting  some 
brooches  which  she  had,  mourning  brooches. 

When  did  you  suggest  calling  in  a  nurse? — The  day  that  the  will 
was  signed. 

Who  did  you  suggest  should  be  called  in? — I  said  she  ought  to  have 
a  hospital  nurse,  or  go  to  a  hospital,  but  she  would  not  have  either.  I 
said,  "  Would  you  like  me  to  write  to  Mrs.  Cugnoni?  "  She  said,  "  No," 
ehe  did  not  want  to  have  any  relations. 

Was  that  a  cousin  who  had  written  to  her? — Offered  her  a  home  at 
Clapton. 

When  Mr.  Vonderahe  came  to  call  upon  you,  on  9th  October,  was 
his  attitude  conciliatory  or  not? — No,  it  was  the  opposite. 

And,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  it  made  no  difference  who  was 
paying  the  annuity  so  long  as  the  property  had  been  sold  for  an  annuity? 
—Yes. 

That  is  the  attitude  you  took  up? — He  seemed  very  sarcastic. 

And  are  you  sure  you  never  said  about  "the  open  market"? — No, 
he  spoke  with  a  kind  of  sneer  all  the  time.  That  is  why  I  said,  "  Well, 
you  can  go  and  get  a  solicitor." 

You  told  my  learned  friend  you  have  always  believed  that  that  letter 
did  reach  the  Vonderahes? — I  feel  certain. 

Just  now  you  said,  when  talking  about  putting  the  money  on  deposit 
with  the  building  society,  you  had  done  the  same  thing  years  before. 
Now,  about  the  bundle  of  receipts.  Are  those  receipts  absolutely  genuine 
receipts  given  to  you  by  Miss  Barrow,  as  they  purport  to  be? — I  swear 
they  are.  I  will  stake  my  life  on  that. 

Are  you  willing  that  I  should  call  Mrs.  Seddon  as  a  witness  on  your 
behalf?— Yes. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Your  lordship  will  see  that  I  put  that  question 
because  of  the  decision  in  the  House  of  Lords.  I  am  going  to  call  Mrs. 
Seddon  as  a  witness  for  Mr.  Seddon,  by  her  consent,  otherwise  I  should 
have  to  wait  until  the  end  of  my  case  before  she  was  called.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  decision  of  the  House  of  Lords,  I  have  got  his  consent  and 
I  have  got  her  consent,  and  after  calling  two  formal  witnesses  I  shall 
call  her  as  a  witness  for  Mr.  Seddon. 
230 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Frank  Edward  Whiting 

FRANK  EDWARD  WHITING,  examined  by  Mr.  ORR — I  am  a  member  of 
the  firm  of  Whiting  &  Ford,  architects,  30  Bedford  Road.  On  2nd  January, 
on  the  instructions  of  Mr.  Saint,  I  drew  the  plan  of  Miss  Barrow's  bedroom 
which  is  now  produced,  and  is  correct. 

ALBERT  SIDNEY  WAINWRIGHT,  examined  by  Mr.  MABSHALL  HALL — I 
am  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Ramsay,  Wainwright  &  Co.,  auctioneers, 
279  Seven  Sisters  Road.  I  have  known  the  male  prisoner  for  some  years. 
On  my  return  from  my  holidays  at  the  end  of  August,  1909,  I  submitted 
particulars  of  the  leasehold  property  at  63  Tollington  Park  to  him,  and 
eventually  he  offered  £320,  which  the  vendors  accepted  on  3rd  September. 
In  the  evening  of  that  day  I  called  on  the  male  prisoner  at  200  Seven 
Sisters  Road,  and  filled  in  a  form  of  contract,  which  we  discussed.  I 
wanted  £30  deposit,  but  he  would  only  pay  £15  because  there  was  a 
forfeiture  clause  in  it.  To  pay  the  £15  he  brought  out  a  bag  of  gold, 
which  he  emptied  on  to  his  desk.  He  counted  out  £15,  and  I  said  that 
as  I  was  going  out  that  night  I  would  prefer  to  have  a  cheque.  He  said 
it  would  make  no  difference  to  him,  and  then  he  put  all  the  gold  back 
into  his  bag  and  we  had  a  chat.  He  said  that  the  repairs  to  the  property 
were  going  to  cost  him  about  £50,  and  he  tapped  the  bag  and  said, 
"  With  this  money  and  other  money  I  am  possessed  of  I  can  pay  for  this 
house."  I  said,  "  Well,  if  that  is  the  case  I  should  not  put  all  your 
eggs  into  one  basket.  Why  not  buy  two  or  three  houses,  and  put  a  small 
amount  in  each?  Get  mortgages  and  the  houses  will  pay  for  themselves." 
He  fell  in  with  that  idea,  and  from  time  to  time  I  gave  him  particulars 
of  other  houses.  He  made  an  offer  for  one,  but  it  was  not  accepted.  It 
was  my  suggestion  entirely  that  he  should  get  a  mortgage  on  this  property. 
I  thought  it  was  a  good  time  to  speculate  in  house  property,  and  by 
paying  a  deposit  and  a  certain  amount  of  the  purchase  price  and  borrow- 
ing the  rest  on  mortgage  from  a  building  society  he  would  be  able  to  buy 
more  property  with  the  same  amount  of  money.  I  got  instructions  to 
let  the  house,  but  I  did  not  find  a  tenant,  and  so  Mr.  Seddon  decided  to 
inhabit  the  house  himself.  The  matter  of  the  mortgage  cropped  up 
once  or  twice.  I  might  say  that  just  before  the  completion  Mr.  Seddon 
was  rather  annoyed  about  the  solicitors'  charges.  The  law  costs  came 
to  more  than  he  thought  they  would  be,  and  so  he  came  to  me  and 
kicked  up  rather  a  row  with  me,  as  if  it  were  my  fault.  I  told  him  to 
go  down  to  see  the  lawyers,  and  I  believe  he  went  and  saw  them,  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact  I  know  he  carried  the  mortgage  through.  Not  only 
did  I  originally  suggest  it,  but  I  persuaded  him  to  carry  it  through.  I 
looked  upon  Mr.  Seddon  as  a  man  of  substance. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNET-GENERAL — I  knew  afterwards  that 
he  held  Cardiff  stock,  but  I  cannot  say  how  much  it  was. 

THOMAS  CREEK,  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  a  carman, 
and  I  reside  at  11  Greenwood  Place,  Kentish  Town.  I  have  known  the 
man  Hook  for  some  years.  On  26th  July,  1910,  at  his  request  I  removed 
some  goods  belonging  to  Miss  Barrow  from  31  Evershot  Road  to  63 
Tollington  Park.  The  goods  were  in  one  room.  I  think  the  removing 
was  done  between  twelve  and  three.  Hook  helped  me  to  load  and  unload 

231 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Thomas  Creek 

the  van.  He  did  not  carry  anything  in  his  hand.  I  cannot  remember 
anything  left  behind  that  he  went  back  for.  I  did  not  see  him  carrying 
a  bag.  He  and  I  stopped  and  had  a  drink  in  a  public-house  while  Miss 
Barrow  and  the  boy  stood  by  the  van.  After  we  had  done  unloading  I 
left  Hook  putting  down  the  oilcloth.  I  was  paid  4s. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNET-GENERAL — I  get  my  living  doing 
these  jobs.  I  do  not  keep  any  note  of  them ;  all  I  am  concerned  with 
is  doing  my  work  and  getting  my  pay.  There  was  nothing  special  about 
the  moving  that  I  have  spoken  about.  I  should  know  if  any  one  was 
carrying  a  bag  in  his  hand  or  if  he  was  carrying  nothing,  although  it 
was  eighteen  or  nineteen  months  ago.  It  was  some  time  this  year  when 
Mr.  Saint  came  to  me  and  asked  if  I  could  remember  about  this. 

It  is  not  a  very  unusual  thing  for  you  to  have  a  drink? — It  would 
be  an  unusual  thing  if  we  didn't. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Hook  only  engaged  me  on 
that  one  occasion  to  remove  goods  from  Evershot  Road  to  Tollington 
Park. 

MARGARET  ANN  SEDDON  (prisoner,  on  oath),  examined  by  Mr.  RENTOUL 
— I  am  the  wife  of  the  male  prisoner.  I  am  thirty-four  years  of  age. 
I  have  been  married  for  eighteen  years,  and  I  have  five  children,  my 
youngest  child  being  born  on  3rd  January  of  last  year.  In  1909  we  lived 
at  200  Seven  Sisters  Road,  where  I  carried  on  a  wardrobe  business  under 
the  name  of  "Madame  Rowan."  My  husband  found  the  money  to  start 
that  business  partly  from  the  bank  and  partly  from  what  he  had  in  the 
Cardiff  stock.  He  always  used  to  keep  money  in  hand,  and  I  have  seen 
it  myself  from  time  to  time.  He  always  kept  the  takings,  first  in  the 
secretaire,  and  then  later  on  in  a  safe  that  he  bought.  We  did  a  splendid 
business.  Books  were  kept,  but  they  were  mutilated.  In  February, 
1910,  we  moved  to  63  Tollington  Park,  where  we  occupied  the  basement 
and  the  first  two  floors  and  let  the  top  part.  My  husband  used  the  basement 
as  an  office  for  transacting  his  business.  He  had  got  another  safe,  which 
was  placed  in  the  office,  the  first  safe  being  in  our  bedroom.  We  adver- 
tised for  a  tenant  for  the  top  floor,  and  in  July,  1910,  Miss  Barrow  called 
to  see  the  rooms.  I  saw  her  myself,  with  the  little  boy  Ernie.  She 
did  not  decide  to  take  the  rooms  then,  as  she  said  she  had  a  friend. 
She  called  again  with  Mrs.  Hook,  and  then  decided  to  take  the  rooms, 
paying  a  week's  deposit.  She  came  to  live  in  the  rooms,  along  with 
Ernie  Grant  and  the  Hooks.  The  Hooka  left  our  house  through  a  quarrel 
with  Miss  Barrow,  on  a  Saturday  night,  I  think.  They  must  have  all 
had  a  little  drop  of  drink,  and  they  started  quarrelling  together.  Then, 
on  the  Sunday,  they  took  Ernest  out  and  left  Miss  Barrow  in  bed  sick 
all  day.  She  had  no  one  to  attend  to  her  but  my  daughter.  When  the 
Hooks  returned  at  night  Miss  Barrow  was  still  sick.  They  were  quarrel- 
ling, and  my  husband  wrote  a  note  and  pinned  it  on  the  door.  Miss 
Barrow  complained  to  my  husband  and  me  about  the  way  that  they 
carried  on,  and  said  that  she  could  not  have  it.  I  remember  Miss  Barrow 
coming  downstairs  and  speaking  to  my  husband  in  the  dining-room  a 
day  or  two  before  the  Hooks  left  the  house.  She  said  she  was  frightened 
of  the  Hooks,  she  could  not  trust  them,  and  she  wanted  to  put  her  cash 
232 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

box  in  my  husband's  safe.  She  said  there  was  between  £30  and  £35  in 
the  cash  box.  My  husband  said  that  he  would  not  have  it  unless  Miss 
Barrow  counted  it  out.  She  took  her  cash  box  upstairs  again,  and  my 
husband  thought  she  had  taken  it  up  to  count  it,  but  she  did  not  come 
down  again.  The  Hooks  left  a  day  or  two  later,  on  the  Tuesday  I  think 
it  was.  After  that  my  daughter  Maggie  looked  after  Miss  Barrow  right 
up  to  the  time  she  took  ill,  and  she  used  to  get  a  shilling  a  day  pocket 
money. 

After  the  Hooks  left,  I  noticed  that  Miss  Barrow  was  always  sitting 
crying ;  she  told  me  it  was  about  the  compensation  funds  in  regard  to 
the  public-house  that  she  had,  and  she  asked  me  to  tell  my  husband  that 
she  wanted  to  see  him.  My  husband  saw  her  later  on.  I  don't  know 
whether  I  was  present  then  or  not,  nor  do  I  remember  whether  my 
husband  went  up  or  she  came  down.  My  husband  told  me  something 
about  Miss  Barrow's  properties,  but  I  don't  understand  these  financial 
affairs.  I  witnessed  an  annuity  certificate,  and  later  on  the  will.  When 
Miss  Barrow  first  came  to  the  house  she  paid  12s.  a  week  rent,  which 
was  entered  up  by  my  husband  in  her  rent  book  every  week.  After  the 
arrangement  about  the  annuity  I  think  my  husband  wrote  in  the  rent  book 
"Free  as  arranged,"  and  signed  it  underneath  "  Clear  "  every  week.  I 
know  about  the  diamond  ring. 

What  happened  with  regard  to  that? — I  was  confined  at  the  time. 
Miss  Barrow  brought  it  into  the  bedroom  and  made  a  present  of  it  to  my 
husband  when  the  transaction  was  finished.  I  have  seen  my  husband 
wear  it  on  his  little  finger  during  Miss  Barrow's  life.  She  made  me  a 
present  of  a  gold  watch  and  chain  with  three  charms  upon  it  (exhibits*  121 
and  122)  on  my  thirty-first  birthday.  My  husband  made  me  a  present 
of  a  gold  bangle  at  the  same  time.  The  charms  are  on  my  bracelet  now. 
Miss  Barrow  also  gave  my  daughter  Maggie  a  gold  necklet  and  locket 
(exhibit  123)  on  her  birthday.  I  remember  Miss  Barrow  giving  me  a 
letter  she  had  written  with  regard  to  her  relations  in  March  of  last  year 
(exhibit  7).*  My  husband  was  out  at  the  time,  and  I  gave  it  to  him 
when  he  came  in. 

When  Miss  Barrow  was  living  at  our  house  she  asked  me  to  cash 
bank  notes  for  her.  I  think  she  had  been  out  herself  to  get  one  cashed, 
and  some  one  would  not  cash  it  for  her,  so  she  asked  me  if  I  would  get 
it  cashed.  I  took  it  to  the  Post  Office,  and  they  asked  me  for  my  name 
and  address.  I  thought  it  was  rather  funny,  as  I  never  cashed  a  note  in 
my  life  before,  and  so  I  gave  the  first  name  that  came  into  my  head.  I 
did  not  give  my  own  name  and  address.  That  would  be  about  a  month 
or  so  after  Miss  Barrow  came  to  the  house,  I  could  not  exactly  say  when. 
I  gave  the  cash  to  Miss  Barrow  when  I  came  back,  five  sovereigns,  as  far 
as  I  can  remember.  I  have  an  idea  that  the  name  I  gave  at  the  Post 
Office  was  "  M.  Scott,  18  Evershot  Road,"  or  "12  Evershot  Road,"  I 
am  not  sure  which.  After  that  day  Miss  Barrow  from  time  to  time  asked 
me  to  change  notes  for  her,  and  I  had  no  difficulty  whatever  in  changing 
them. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  would  go  out  to  do  some  shopping,  and 

*  Appendix  F. 

233 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

then  I  would  change  the  note  and  make  the  balance  up.  I  sometimes 
gave  her  all  gold,  and  sometimes  I  gave  her  some  silver.  It  depended  if 
I  had  bought  anything — if  I  bought  and  paid  for  anything,  then  I  made 
it  up.  At  the  shops  I  went  to  where  I  was  known  I  gave  my  right  name 
and  address,  because  they  already  knew  it.  When  I  went  to  the  shops 
where  I  was  not  known  I  gave  the  name  of  "  M.  Scott." 

Examination  continued — I  always  gave  the  money  to  Miss  Barrow. 
I  remember  going  with  Miss  Barrow  to  draw  some  money  from  the  savings 
bank.  She  asked  my  husband,  would  he  allow  me  to  go  with  her.  You 
see,  I  had  a  young  baby  at  the  time.  She  wanted  to  draw  out  this 
money  on  account  of  the  bank — the  Birkbeck  Bank,  I  think.  She  was 
paid  in  two  bags  containing  £100  each,  and  £16  loose  gold,  and  I  think 
some  coppers.  She  emptied  it  all  out  on  the  counter,  and  the  cashier 
passed  the  remark  that  it  was  not  necessary  because  it  was  just  as  it  had 
come  from  the  bank.  I  never  touched  the  money  at  all,  and  I  have 
never  seen  that  money  since.  When  she  came  in  my  husband  said 
something  to  her  about  putting  it  away,  that  he  did  not  like  to  have  it  all 
in  gold,  and  she  said  she  knew  what  to  do  with  it.  I  do  not  think  she 
spoke  to  my  husband  for  a  week  after  that. 

Up  to  the  time  of  her  illness  Miss  Barrow  used  to  go  out  every  day. 
She  used  to  take  the  little  boy  to  school  and  stop  out  till  perhaps  10  or 
10.30.  and  then  bring  in  her  dinner  with  her,  and  sometimes  she  would 
see  the  boy  start  to  school,  and  come  back  and  go  out  and  get  her  dinner. 
She  used  to  say  that  she  met  a  woman  when  she  was  out,  but  I  could  not 
tell  who  it  was.  She  told  me  that  her  relations  were  not  kind  to  her. 
With  regard  to  her  hearing,  she  could  hear  my  baby  crying,  and  she  could 
hear  quite  plainly  Ernie's  voice  or  my  voice  just  by  putting  her  hand 
to  her  ear.  I  had  no  difficulty  in  making  her  hear,  she  got  used  to  me. 

As  far  as  I  know,  she  was  out  on  the  morning  of  1st  September,  the 
day  when  she  was  taken  ill,  but  I  cannot  say  positively,  because  I  did  not  get 
up  till  about  10.30.  When  I  came  down  she  was  sitting  in  our  kitchen. 
She  complained  about  being  sick,  bilious,  and  I  advised  her  to  go  upstairs 
and  have  a  lie  down.  I  helped  her  upstairs,  and  she  lay  down  on  the  bed 
without  undressing.  I  gave  her  a  cup  of  tea,  but  she  was  sick  after  it. 
I  had  seen  her  like  this  before,  off  and  on,  with  these  sick  bilious  attacks 
every  month.  The  next  day  she  had  sickness  and  diarrhoea,  and  I  thought 
it  better  to  send  for  a  doctor.  She  asked  me  in  the  morning  to  tell  my 
husband  that  she  could  sign  for  her  annuity,  and  he  went  up  to  her,  and 
she  signed  two  receipts  in  my  presence.  After  dinner  she  gradually  seemed 
to  have  the  diarrhoea  and  sickness,  and  we  thought  it  safer — best — to  call 
in  a  doctor,  and  I  went  for  Dr.  Paul,  to  whom  I  had  previously  taken  her, 
but  he  could  not  come.  We  sent  for  him  a  second  tirr.e,  and  he  said 
finally  he  could  not  come,  but  to  get  the  nearest  doctor  in  the  neighbour- 
hood. My  daughter  telephoned  for  Dr.  Sworn,  who  was  our  own  family 
doctor.  I  saw  Dr.  Sworn  when  he  came,  and  he  told  me  that  Miss  Barrow 
was  to  have  no  solid  food,  that  everything  she  ate  was  to  be  light.  He 
sent  her  some  medicine,  but  she  would  not  take  it,  because  it  was  a 
chalky,  thick  medicine.  The  doctor  called  again  on  Sunday,  the  3rd,  and 
gave  her  a  dose  himself,  and  said  that  she  would  have  to  take  it.  There 
was  no  mention  made  of  her  going  to  the  hospital  till  Monday  or  Tuesday. 
234 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

She  had  been  ill  a  few  days  then  before  the  doctor  suggested  her  going  to 
the  hospital.  I  complained  about  her  not  taking  the  fizzy  medicine,  and 
when  the  doctor  said  that  she  would  have  to  go  to  the  hospital,  she  said 
she  would  not  go.  I  asked  her  myself  in  the  doctor's  presence,  would  she 
go  to  the  hospital,  and  she  said,  "  No,"  and  she  refused  to  have  a  nurse. 

I  remember  Miss  Barrow  soon  after  the  commencement  of  her  illness 
leaving  her  own  room  and  going  into  the  boy's  bedroom.  I  remonstrated 
with  her  for  it,  and  told  her  that  the  doctor  would  blame  me  if  anything 
happened  to  her.  She  complained  of  the  flies  in  her  bedroom ;  it  was  very 
hot,  and  we  had  to  have  all  the  windows  open,  and  we  were  fanning  her 
to  keep  the  flies  from  coming  on  to  her.  The  doctor  said  there  were  a 
great  many  flies — he  had  never  seen  so  many.  It  was  the  smell  that 
caused  that.  Miss  Barrow  asked  me  if  I  would  get  her  some  fly-papers; 
she  said  she  did  not  want  the  sticky  ones,  she  wanted  those  that  you  wet, 
and  I  got  her  some.  I  think  this  was  either  on  Monday,  the  4th,  or 
Tuesday,  the  5th,  but  I  cannot  swear  to  dates.  I  got  these  fly-papers  at 
Meacher's,  the  chemist,  in  Stroud  Green  Road,  just  round  the  corner  from 
our  house.  An  old  gentleman  served  me.  I  think  I  ordered  at  the  same 
time  a  9s.  6d.  bottle  of  the  baby's  food,  Horlick's  malted  milk,  but  they 
had  not  got  it,  and  he  said  he  would  send  it  home  when  he  had  it  in.  I 
also  bought  a  pennyworth  of  white  precipitate  powder,  with  which  Miss 
Barrow  used  to  wash  her  head.  I  have  also  seen  her  cleaning  her  teeth 
with  it.  When  I  bought  the  fly-papers  I  did  not  sign  any  book  or  any- 
thing. I  never  bought  a  packet;  I  have  never  seen  packets.  I  asked  first 
for  two  fly-papers,  and  I  put  down  twopence,  and  then  Mr.  Meacher,  or 
whatever  his  name  is,  said,  "Why  not  have  four?  You  can  have  four  for 
threepence."  I  said  "  Very  well,  then,  I  might  as  well  have  the  four."  They 
were  rolled  up  in  a  piece  of  white  paper.  When  Miss  Barrow  saw  the 
papers  she  said  they  were  the  ones  she  wanted.  I  put  them  in  a  plate  to 
damp  them,  and  wet  them  all  over  with  water,  and  then  I  put  them  in  four 
saucers,  two  of  which  I  put  on  the  mantelpiece  and  two  on  the  chest  of 
drawers  in  between  her  mirror. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — When  I  put  the  damp  papers  in  the 
saucers  I  also  put  water  in  the  saucers. 

Examination  continued — Up  to  the  time  that  Miss  Barrow  took  ill 
Maggie  did  her  cooking ;  but  after  that,  when  she  was  ill  in  bed,  I  did  the 
cooking  down  in  my  kitchen.  There  was  really  no  cooking  to  do,  unless 
the  Valentine's  meat  juice,  which  had  to  be  prepared  with  cold  water;  the 
other  things,  of  course,  wanted  boiling,  such  as  barley  water.  Before  she 
was  taken  ill  the  cooking  was  done  in  her  own  kitchen,  except  once  or 
twice,  when  she  asked  me  to  cook  her  a  pudding  or  sometimes  some  fish. 
She  used  to  have  a  cup  of  tea  in  the  morning;  Mary  always  made  that, 
but  I  did  not  see  it  made,  as  I  was  in  bed.  Maggie,  I  think,  used  to  take 
it  into  the  bedroom  both  before  and  after  Miss  Barrow  was  ill.  At  first 
I  used  to  get  up  at  six  o'clock  when  I  heard  the  milkman  and  get  her  a  glass 
of  cold  milk.  After  that,  when  my  boys  were  called  up  about  seven  o'clock, 
she  used  to  have  this  cup  of  tea  that  the  servant  made.  She  continued  to 
have  the  tea  until  four  days  before  she  died,  when  the  doctor  said  she  was 
to  have  no  more,  because  she  never  kept  it  in  her  stomach. 

During  her  illness  no  one  waited  upon  her  besides  myself,  except,  if 

235 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

I  happened  to  be  out  of  the  road,  when  perhaps  Maggie  would  go  up,  or 
any  one  who  was  knocking  about.  My  husband  gave  Miss  Barrow  her 
medicine  only  on  one  occasion — that  was  when  I  complained  to  him  that 
she  would  not  take  her  medicine  while  it  was  fizzing,  and  the  doctor  had 
said  that  if  she  did  not  do  so  it  would  never  do  her  any  good. 

On  the  Sunday  or  Monday  Miss  Barrow  wanted  to  see  my  husband  with 
reference  to  the  will,  but  he  did  not  go  up  at  once.  I  think  he  went  up 
on  the  Monday  morning,  or  afternoon,  but  I  could  not  say  for  certain.  I 
was  present  when  lie  went  up,  and  I  heard  Miss  Barrow  say  that  she 
wanted  to  make  it  out  for  the  boy  and  girl,  what  furniture  and  jewellery 
she  had  belonging  to  her — for  Hilda  and  Ernie.  She  did  not  want  Mr. 
Hook  or  any  of  the  other  relations  to  have  what  belonged  to  the  boy's 
mother  and  father;  she  only  wanted  the  boy  and  girl  to  have  it.  My 
husband  suggested  a  solicitor  to  her,  but  she  dicl  not  want  a  solicitor;  she 
did  not  want  the  expense,  and  she  asked  him  if  he  could  not  do  it  himself. 

Did  she  say  anything  else? — I  cannot  remember.  I  think  my  husband 
went  down  into  the  office  after  that.  The  next  thing  I  remember  with 
regard  to  the  will  is  going  up  to  sign  it.  We  had  my  sister-in-lavr  with 
us  at  the  time,  and  between  six  and  seven  o'clock,  after  we  had  all  had 
dinner  and  everything,  my  husband  called  me  and  my  father-in-law  to  come 
up  and  witness  this  will  of  Miss  Barrow's.  We  propped  her  up  in  bed 
with  pillows  in  a  sitting  position  to  get  her  to  sign  it,  and  then  I  signed  it 
on  a  little  table,  and  my  father-in-law  signed  it.  My  husband  read  the  will 
to  Miss  Barrow,  and  then  she  asked  for  her  glasses  to  read  it  herself,  which 
she  did,  and  then  she  signed  it.  This  was  the  day  on  which  my  sister- 
in-law  came  on  a  visit.  I  think  her  husband  had  written  to  Mr.  Seddon 
asking  whether  she  could  come  for  a  few  days,  and  he  answered  back  that 
she  could  take  pot-luck.  <-We  had  an  old  lady  ill  in  the  house,  but  if  she 
cared  to  come  she  could  take  pot-luck."  The  doctor  came  again  on  the 
Tuesday,  and  I  saw  him.  On  that  day,  I  think  it  was,  I  had  an  accident 
with  one  of  the  saucers — I  knocked  one  off  the  mantelpiece.  I  then  went 
down  and  got  a  soup  plate,  and  lifted  the  fly-paper  up  that  had  come  out 
from  the  saucer  that  was  broken  and  put  the  others  together — the  whole 
four — into  the  one  soup  plate,  and  put  it  on  the  little  table  between  the 
two  windows.  I  had  to  put  fresh  water  into  the  soup  plate.  It  remained 
there  until  the  morning  Miss  Barrow  died. 

Adjourned. 


Eighth   Day— Tuesday,   I2th   March,   1912. 

The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

MARGARET  ANN  SEDDON  (prisoner),  recalled,  examination  continued  by 
Mr.  RENTOUL — During  Miss  Barrow's  illness  she  used  to  get  out  of  bed. 
Dr.  Sworn  saw  her  on  the  morning  of  Wednesday,  13th  September.  My 
husband  went  to  the  theatre  that  evening.  About  twelve  o'clock,  while 
standing  at  the  gate  waiting  for  my  husband  with  my  sister-in-law — I 
236 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

think  it  was  my  sister-in-law  or  my  daughter — I  heard  Miss  Barrow  calling 
out,  "  I'm  dying."  I  said  to  my  sister-in-law,  Mrs.  Longley,  "  Did  you 
hear  what  Miss  Barrow  says?"  So  with  that  I  rushed  upstairs.  I  also 
asked  my  sister-in-law  to  come  up  with  me.  She  did  not  like  at  first, 
but  then  she  followed  up  afterwards.  I  asked  Miss  Barrow  what  was  the 
matter  with  her,  and  she  said  she  had  violent  pains  in  her  stomach,  and 
that  her  feet  felt  cold.  I  asked  my  sister-in-law  what  should  I  do,  as  I  had 
no  hot  water  bottles  in  the  house.  She  replied,  "  Wrap  a  flannel  petticoat 
round  her  feet,"  which  I  did.  Then  I  done  the  same  what  I  generally  done 
with  her  stomach — put  the  hot  flannels  on  and  tried  to  make  her  as  com- 
fortable as  I  possibly  could.  I  turned  the  gas  down  and  went  downstairs. 
My  husband  came  in  about  12.30,  and  I  told  him  what  had  happened. 
He  did  not  go  up  immediately;  he  was  talking  to  my  sister-in-law  about 
a  man  doing  him  out  of  sixpence  or  something  at  the  theatre.  I  think  in 
the  meantime  the  boy  came  down,  but  I  am  not  certain.  My  husband,  my 
sister-in-law,  and  I  went  up — I  think  it  was  after  the  boy  had  been  down, 
but  I  will  not  say  for  certain.  My  husband  introduced  Mrs.  Longley  to 
Miss  Barrow,  but  Miss  Barrow  just  looked  at  her,  and  I  think  my  sister- 
in-law  went  downstairs — I  am  not  quite  sure.  She  said  the  boy  had  no 
right  to  be  in  bed  with  Miss  Barrow ;  it  was  unhealthy,  and  then  she  went 
half-way  down  the  stairs.  I  remained  and  attended  to  what  Miss  Barrow 
wanted.  I  do  not  know  whether  my  husband  gave  Miss  Barrow  a  drop  of 
brandy  at  that  time  or  not,  but  he  told  her  that  she  must  go  to  sleep  and 
rest,  that  I  would  be  knocked  up,  and  she  said  she  could  not  help  it.  We 
then  went  downstairs  to  bed — my  husband  leaving  the  room  first,  you  must 
remember — and  I  attended  to  Miss  Barrow  while  they  went  downstairs. 
I  then  went  down  and  got  into  bed.  We  were  not  in  bed  long  before  the 
boy  came  downstairs  again  and  said  that  "Chickie"  wanted  me.  I  went 
up  and  put  hot  flannels  on  her  and  attended  to  her  properly — she  was 
suffering  from  diarrhoea  then. 

Did  you  think  she  was  dying"? — No,  I  have  never  seen  anybody 
dying.  I  went  downstairs,  and  I  had  just  got  the  baby  on  my  arm  when  I 
was  called  upstairs  again  by  the  boy  saying,  "  Chickie  wants  you."  He 
knocked  at  our  door  and  called  from  the  bottom  of  the  stairs.  I  went  up 
again  and  attended  to  her  just  the  same  as  I  had  done  before.  She  did 
not  seem  sick — she  was  only  once  or  twice  sick  during  that  night;  she 
seemed  to  be  retching,  not  proper  vomiting,  but  a  nasty  froth  came  up. 
She  had  the  diarrhoea  bad.  My  husband  did  not  go  up  with  me  on  that 
occasion,  but  he  did  the  next  time  when  the  boy  called  out  that  Miss  Barrow 
was  out  of  bed.  My  husband  told  me  to  stop  in  bed  and  he  would  go  up 
and  attend  to  her.  I  said,  "  It  is  no  good  of  you  going  up,"  because  I 
thought  she  wanted  me  the  same  as  before,  but  my  husband  would  go  up, 
and  so  I  followed  after  him. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BTJCKNILL — How  long  after? — Just  at  the  same  time. 
We  were  both  on  the  staircase  at  the  same  time. 

Examination  continued — When  we  got  up  Miss  Barrow  was  in  a  sitting 
position  on  the  floor  and  the  boy  was  holding  her  up;  we  lifted  her  into 
bed  again.  This  must  have  been  between  three  and  four  in  the  morning — 
I  could  not  tell  the  time.  I  made  her  the  same  as  I  had  done  before,  hot 
flannels,  and  made  her  comfortable. 

237 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Where  did  the  hot  water  come  from  that 
you  put  on  the  flannels? — From  her  kitchen. 

Was  there  plenty  of  hot  water  there? — No,  there  was  not.  I  had 
to  put  a  pan  on  the  gas  stove,  put  the  flannel  between  two  plates,  and 
wait  till  they  got  hot,  and  then  put  it  on. 

Examination  continued — Miss  Barrow  was  not  complaining  then  of 
anything  to  my  knowledge,  but  generally  she  was  always  complaining. 
She  asked  me  to  stay  with  her,  and  my  husband  said  to  her,  "  If  Mrs. 
Seddon  sits  up  with  you  all  night  she  will  be  knocked  up.  You  must 
remember  Mrs.  Seddon  has  got  a  young  baby,  and  she  wants  a  rest." 
The  little  boy  was  in  and  out  of  her  bed  all  this  time.  My  husband  told 
him  to  go  to  his  bed  every  time  that  we  went  up  and  down  stairs.  The 
fourth  time  was  the  last  time  that  I  went  up,  and  I  stayed  with  her  after 
that ;  I  sat  in  a  basket  chair  near  the  end  of  the  bed.  I  put  on  more  hot 
flannels.  She  seemed  to  go  to  sleep,  and  my  husband,  who  was  standing 
at  the  bedroom  door  smoking  his  pipe  and  reading,  said  to  me,  "  Why 
don't  you  go  down  and  go  to  bed?  "  I  said,  "  What's  the  good  of  going 
to  bed?  She  will  only  call  me  up  again."  So  I  made  up  my  mind  to 
sit  in  the  chair.  Then  Miss  Barrow  seemed  to  be  sleeping,  and  I  was 
dozing  in  the  chair.  I  was  sleeping  tired. 

Was  Miss  Barrow  snoring? — Yes. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — She  seemed  to  be  sleeping  peacefully  for 
some  time,  then  after  a  while  she  seemed  to  be  snoring.  It  was  getting 
on  towards  daylight  then,  and  my  husband  drew  attention  that  the  snoring 
had  stopped  and  her  breathing  had  stopped.  Then  he  lifted  up  her 
eyelid,  and  said — I  can't  say  it — I  don't  like  to  say  it. 

Never  mind,  say  it  low? — He  said,  "Good  God,  she's  dead!"  So 
with  that  he  hurried  out  and  went  for  Dr.  Sworn.  This  would  be  between 
6  and  6.30,  as  far  as  I  can  reckon  the  time. 

Examination  continued — While  your  husband  was  gone  for  Dr.  Sworn 
what  did  you  do? — I  came  down  with  my  husband  the  same  time,  locked 
the  door  so  that  the  boy  should  not  go  in,  and  came  downstairs  into  the 
kitchen.  Mary  was  in  the  kitchen,  and  I  told  her  Miss  Barrow,  I  thought, 
had  passed  away.  Then  I  had  a  cup  of  tea,  I  think.  Then  I  went  up 
and  woke  my  daughter,  and  also  the  boys,  and  told  them.  I  do  not  know 
whether  my  daughter  or  one  of  the  boys  went  for  Mrs.  Rutt,  the  char- 
woman— I  can't  just  remember.  My  husband  came  in  from  the  doctor's 
about  the  same  time,  and  then  we  all  three  went  up  to  the  bedroom. 
Perhaps  Mrs.  Rutt  and  I  went  up  first.  We  attended  to  the  body.  I 
asked  my  husband  to  help  us  with  the  feather  bed  from  under  her  so  that 
she  could  lie  flat.  After  that  my  husband  asked  me  if  I  knew  where 
Miss  Barrow  kept  her  keys,  and  I  said  I  didn't  know,  and  I  started  looking 
for  them.  I  felt  in  Miss  Barrow's  bag  that  hung  on  the  bed,  but  there 
was  only  the  street  door  key  in  that.  Then  it  was  suggested,  "  Look  in 
the  chest  of  drawers,"  and  I  lifted  out  what  was  in  one  of  the  drawers, 
and  in  the  first  little  drawer  that  I  opened  I  found  them  hidden  under 
the  paper.  I  gave  them  to  my  husband — Mrs.  Rutt  was  there — and  he 
tried  two  or  three  keys  before  the  trunk  would  unlock,  and  then  he  opened 
it.  There  were  two  or  three  articles  of  clothing  on  the  top.  I  think 
238 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

there  was  a  tray  which  he  lifted  out,  and  the  cash  box  was  underneath 
this  tray.  He  tried  two  or  three  keys  before  the  little  box  would  open, 
and  then  he  found  £4  10s. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  was  in  gold  in  a  little  brown  paper 
bag.  My  husband  still  went  on  searching  the  trunk.  I  don't  know  what 
he  did  with  the  cash  box ;  I  don't  know  whether  he  locked  it  up  and  put 
it  back  again,  as  Mrs.  Rutt  and  I  were  washing  Miss  Barrow  at  the  time. 
My  husband  continued  searching  the  trunk  and  found  a  silver  watch  and 
chain,  and  another  silver  watch  and  chain,  and  some  brooches,  and  I  think 
there  was  a  bracelet,  and  then  some  articles  of  clothing. 

Examination  continued — We  didn't  find  any  more  money  then  in  the 
trunk,  but  later  on  in  the  afternoon  we  found  some  more. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  was  emptying  the  clothes  out  of  Miss 
Barrow's  drawers — every  drawer — and  in  the  little  drawer  where  I  found 
the  keys  I  found  three  sovereigns  wrapped  up  in  tissue  paper.  They  were 
in  the  folds  of  the  paper  which  lay  in  the  drawer,  so  that  if  the  drawer 
paper  was  bent  like  that  (indicating)  to  make  it  fit  they  were  in  the  folds. 

Examination  continued — The  inside  of  the  handbag  that  I  previously 
looked  at  in  the  morning  was  quite  empty,  but  in  the  side  pocket  I  found 
£'2  10s.  in  gold  wrapped  up  in  white  tissue  paper.  Between  9  and  10 
o'clock  on  the  morning  Miss  Barrow  died  the  children  went  off  to  Southend. 
We  did  not  tell  the  little  boy  Ernie  anything  about  the  death.  I  remember 
Mr.  Nodes,  the  undertaker,  coming  to  the  house  on  the  morning  of  this 
same  day.  My  husband  and  he  went  upstairs  first,  and,  of  course,  I 
naturally  wanted  to  listen  to  what  they  were  saying,  and  I  followed  up 
after  them.  I  don't  know  whether  I  noticed  Mr.  Nodes  taking  the 
measurement  of  the  body  or  not.  He  advised  the  body  to  be  removed  out 
of  the  house,  and  I  said,  "  What  a  shame,  when  she  died  in  the  house." 
He  said,  "  Remember,  Mrs.  Seddon,  you  have  a  young  baby,  and  yotir 
health  is  not  very  good,"  and,  with  the  bad  smell  that  was  coming  from 
Miss  Barrow,  it  was  better  for  the  body  to  go  to  his  shop  or  mortuary.  I 
don't  know  what  he  said  exactly.  The  body  was  removed  that  evening, 
but  I  was  not  in  the  house  then. 

On  the  Friday  morning  I  went  out  with  my  sister-in-law  to  do  some 
shopping.  We  went  to  a  florist  and  I  ordered  a  wreath  of  my  own 
design,  and  then  asked  them  to  send  it  to  my  address,  63  Tollington  Park, 
and  it  was  there  when  I  got  home.  After  dinner,  about  a  quarter  to  two 
or  two  o'clock,  my  father-in-law,  my  sister-in-law,  and  I  took  the  wreath 
to  Mr.  Nodes.  As  the  door  was  locked  I  rang  the  bell.  The  servant  who 
came  said  that  Mrs.  Nodes  was  resting,  and  that  she  would  go  and  tell 
her,  and  then  Mr.  Nodes  came  down,  and  I  said,  "  I  have  brought  this 
wreath  to  put  on  Miss  Barrow's  coffin."  My  father-in-law  asked  for  the 
lid  to  be  opened,  so  I  put  the  cross  (it  was  a  cross  wreath)  on  her  body, 
and  I  kissed  Miss  Barrow.  Next  day  my  husband,  my  father-in-law,  and 
I  went  to  the  funeral.  Our  blinds  were  drawn  from  the  moment  Miss 
Barrow  died.  My  sister-in-law  interfered  with  them  first,  and  pulled 
them  up.  I  said,  "  What  a  shame.  Let  us  show  her  a  little  respect  " — 
you  see  her  body  had  already  gone  out  of  the  house  then — "  by  keeping 
the  blinds  down  until  after  she  is  buried,"  and  then  I  pulled  them  down 

239 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

myself.  The  windows  remained  open  until  we  came  back  from  the 
funeral.  My  husband  spoke  to  me  about  the  letter  that  he  sent  to  the 
Vonderahee. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — On  the  day  of  Miss  Barrow's  death  I  was 
tired  and  went  to  bed.  I  knew  my  husband  was  in  the  office  with  the 
office  men.  He  came  upstairs  to  me  and  said  he  was  tired,  and  I  asked 
him,  "  Why  don't  you  go  to  bed  and  have  a  rest  ?  "  He  said  he  had  one 
particular  thing  to  do,  and  that  was  to  write  a  letter  to  the  relatives. 
So  he  left  me  at  that;  I  don't  know  what  happened  after  that. 

Examination  continued — I  remember  the  two  Mrs.  Vonderahes  calling 
on  21st  September.  I  was  present  at  the  interview,  but  I  cannot  tell 
word  for  word  what  passed.  I  remember  my  husband  asked  them  if  they 
had  not  received  the  letter,  and  Mrs.  Vonderahe  seemed  to  be  a  little 
excited,  and  she  said,  "  No,  what  letter  do  you  mean?  "  So  my  husband 
brought  out  of  his  pocket  a  copy  that  he  kept  and  gave  it  to  her  to  read,  as 
far  as  I  can  remember.  Then  I  think  they  went  on  talking  about  Miss 
Barrow  and  about  her  being  buried  in  a  public  grave,  and  she  said  she 
had  a  family  vault.  My  husband  then  told  them  that  if  they  liked  they 
could  take  the  body  out  and  have  it  buried  in  her  own  grave.  Then 
Mrs.  Vonderahe  turned  round  and  said  it  was  quite  good  enough — the 
public  grave,  I  mean — for  Miss  Barrow,  as  she  had  been  a  bad,  wicked 
woman  all  her  life.  Then  she  went  on  to  describe  how  they  fell  out,  and 
that  she  had  spat  at  them  through  the  window — also  about  the  boy's 
mother  and  father  throwing  bottles  and  fire-irons  at  one  another.  Then 
my  husband  said  that  she  was  a  woman  that  only  required  a  little  humouring, 
and  that  we  had  got  on  all  right  with  her.  Then  I  think  they  spoke  about 
the  boy ;  they  wanted  to  know  what  was  going  to  happen  to  him.  My 
husband  said  he  had  quite  a  good  home  with  us  unless  any  of  his  relatives 
could  give  him  a  better  one,  and  he  said,  "  We  have  no  claim  upon 
him."  Then  they  wanted  to  know  about  her  public-house  and  the  stock. 
I  think  my  husband  said  she  had  bought  an  annuity  with  it,  but  I  am  not 
quite  certain.  One  of  the  Mrs.  Vonderahes  said  something  about 
"  It  would  have  to  be  a  clever  person  to  get  over  her  with  her  business 
transactions."  They  asked  my  husband  if  he  could  see  the  two  Mr. 
Vonderahes  that  evening  or  the  next  evening,  but  as  we  were  going  on  our 
holidays  he  said  that  he  would  see  them  when  he  came  home. 

We  went  away  to  Southend  and  stayed  there  nearly  a  fortnight. 
When  we  got  back  the  little  boy  was  sent  round  to  the  Vonderahes  to  let 
them  know  that  my  husband  was  at  home.  On  9th  October  Mr.  Von- 
derahe called  with  a  friend.  I  was  present  on  that  occasion.  I  think 
my  husband  asked  Mr.  Vonderahe  if  this  was  his  brother,  and  he  said, 
"  No,  it  is  a  friend."  So  I  think  my  husband  said  he  did  not  like 
to  go  into  details,  or  he  would  not  go  into  details  (I  don't  remember 
which),  unless  he  could  prove  that  he  was  the  legal  next-of-kin,  or  some- 
thing of  that  sort.  I  think  Mr.  Vonderahe  replied,  "  How  about  if  he  is 
dead?  "  I  do  not  remember  what  my  husband  replied.  I  wasn't  suffi- 
ciently interested  to  pay  close  attention  to  the  conversation. 

Have  you  ever  administered  or  caused  to  be  administered  arsenic  to  Miss 
Barrow  in  any  shape  or  form? — None  whatever,  none  whatever. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Did  you  look  after  the 
240 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

house — housekeeping  of  the  house? — You  see  I  cannot  go  into  all  details, 
because  it  brings  family  matters  into  it. 

I  don't  want  all  the  details ;  I  want  to  know  who  did  the  house- 
keeping of  your  part  of  the  house? — My  husband  allowed  me — he  paid  the 
bills  at  the  end  of  the  week,  you  see. 

Who  ordered  the  things? — I  did. 

They  were  sent  in,  and  then  were  there  the  weekly  bills  from  various 
tradespeople,  which  he  paid? — Yes. 

Did  your  daughter  Maggie  help  in  the  house  ? — She  looked  after  Miss 
Barrow. 

Did  she  also  at  times  do  errands  for  you? — Yes. 

Did  she  take  the  baby  out  in  the  perambulator? — Yes. 

Used  she  to  do  that  when  Miss  Barrow  was  ill? — I  cannot  just 
remember.  I  don't  think  Margaret  went  out  much  with  the  baby  when 
Miss  Barrow  was  ailing. 

How  old  was  the  baby  at  the  time  Miss  Barrow  came  to  you  ? — I  hadn't 
a  baby  when  Miss  Barrow  came  to  me.  It  was  born  on  3rd  January, 
1911. 

Were  you  on  friendly  terms  with  Miss  Barrow? — Yes,  very  friendly 
terms. 

And  did  you  and  your  husband  get  on  well  with  her? — I  always  got 
on  well  with  her. 

From  the  time  that  she  came  to  you  until  1st  September  she  waa 
never  laid  up,  was  she? — Not  in  bed. 

She  had  small  ailments,  but  nothing  of  any  importance? — I  used  to 
take  her  to  Dr.  Paul. 

You  took  her  to  Dr.  Paul  in  August.  You  may  have  taken  her 
before? — Well,  I  think,  if  Dr.  Paul  will  remember,  I  took  Miss  Barrow 
to  him  before  that  date. 

But  Dr.  Paul  has  told  us ? — Well,  I  would  like  Dr.  Paul  to  look 

at  his  books  and  see.  I  took  Miss  Barrow  to  Dr.  Paul  before  my  baby 
was  born. 

Now,  about  Miss  Barrow's  cash  box ;  how  often  do  you  say  you  saw 
the  cash  box? — On  the  day  that  she  brought  it  down  for  my  husband  to 
have  the  cash  in  the  safe,  and  the  next  occasion  was  when  she  was  dead. 

That  is  just  two  or  three  days  before  the  Hooks  left.  That  is  what 
you  are  speaking  of? — Yes. 

Where  did  the  notes  come  from  that,  according  to  you,  Miss  Barrow 
gave  you? — I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Where  did  she  take  them  from? — I  couldn't  tell  you  where  she  took 
them  from. 

How  did  you  get  them  ? — She  used  to  bring  them  down  to  me  in  the 
dining-room. 

Did  she  go  out  with  you  sometimes? — Very  seldom. 

She  went  out  every  day  by  herself? — Yes,  but  she  didn't  go  with  me. 

Or  with  the  boy.  Do  you  mean  she  came  down  with  a  note  in  her 
hand? — Yes. 

Ever  more  than  one  note  in  her  hand? — She  has  brought  me  two 
twice,  I  think. 

Q  241 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Did  you  ever  say  anything  to  your  husband  about  her  bringing  notes 
to  you  to  change  like  this? — Only  on  one  occasion. 

I  mean  before  the  arrest? — Only  on  one  occasion. 

When  was  that? — When  I  had  been  to  the  Post  Office  to  get  it  cashed. 
My  husband  said,  why  did  I  not  ask  him  to  cash  it. 

Was  that  the  first  time,  then? — Yes. 

Did  you  tell  him  what  you  had  done? — No,  I  don't  remember  telling 
him  what  I  had  done. 

Did  you  tell  him  you  had  given  a  false  name? — No. 

Or  a  false  address? — No. 

Were  you  troubled  about  it  at  all? — No,  not  in  any  way. 

Did  you  think  it  quite  an  ordinary  thing  to  write  your  name  at  the 
back,  or  rather  to  write  a  false  name  at  the  back,  when  you  were  asked 
for  your  name? — No,  it  never  struck  me. 

Never  struck  you  as  what? — Well,  you  see,  I  had  never  changed  a 
note  in  my  life  before ;  this  is  the  first  note  I  had  ever  changed. 

How  long  had  you  been  in  the  wardrobe  business — something  like  a 
year? — Yes,  but  I  never  had  a  note  in  the  wardrobe  business. 

You  had  a  good  deal  of  money,  according  to  what  we  have  heard? — 
Yes,  but  I  never  had  a  note. 

All  gold? — Always  gold. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Or  silver? — Or  silver  or  copper. 

You  do  not  pay  a  sovereign  for  every  old  piece  of  clothing,  I  am 
sure  ? — No. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — When  you  had  the  note  given  to  you  did 
you  know  what  to  do  with  it? — I  went  to  the  Post  Office. 

You  knew  that  much? — Yes. 

And  you  were  asked  to  write  your  name  and  your  address? — Yes. 

Did  you  then  take  the  note  and  write  "M.  Scott"? — Yes,  I  did; 
I  put  "M.  Scott." 

And  the  address,  "18  Evershot  Road"? — Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

Had  you  ever  lived  at  Evershot  Road? — No. 

Had  "  Scott"  ever  been  your  name? — No. 

Did  you  know  anybody  called  "Scott"  in  Evershot  Road? — No. 

Were  you  at  all  alarmed  about  putting  the  false  name  and  address  on 
the  back  of  the  £5  note  for  the  first  time  in  your  life? — I  never  thought 
there  was  any  harm  in  it  whatever. 

Why  didn't  you  give  your  own  name? — The  note  did  not  belong  to  me. 

Then,  why  didn't  you  give  Miss  Barrow's  name? — Because  I  have  no 
right  to  sign  her  name. 

So  you  put  a  false  one — an  invented  one? — Yes. 

And  an  invented  address? — Yes. 

How  came  you  to  use  the  name  of  "  Scott  "? — It  was  the  first  thing 
that  came  into  my  head. 

You  got  more  used  to  changing  notes  afterwards? — I  only  changed 
them  at  shops  where  I  had  always  been  used  to  going ;  I  gave  the  same 
name,  and  shops  where  I  dealt  with  they  knew  me,  and  they  did  not  want 
my  name  and  address. 

But  do  you  know  you  gave  a  false  name  and  a  false  address  at  three 
shops? — Yes,  I  think  that  would  be  right. 
242 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

The  first  note,  according  to  the  evidence  we  have  got,  in  which  you 
gave  a  false  name  and  address,  was  changed  on  12th  October,  1910,  at 
Noakes,  the  grocer,  and  Post  Office.  A  few  days  afterwards  did  you 
change  another  note? — I  could  not  tell  you  whether  it  was  on  20th 
October. 

That  is  eight  days  after? — Yes. 

Did  you  change  that  at  Garner  &  Somerfield's? — Yes. 

What  were  they — drapers? — Yes,  drapers. 

Were  you  asked  to  sign  your  name  there? — Yes,  I  believe  I  was  asked 
to  sign  my  name. 

And  your  address? — Yes. 

Did  you  then  give  a  false  name  and  a  false  address  again? — I  gave 
the  same  name  and  address  as  I  gave  at  the  last. 

Not  yours? — No. 

The  invented  name  and  address? — Yes. 

You  had  had  eight  days  to  think  about  it? — I  never  thought  about  it. 

Or  to  speak  to  your  husband  about  it? — No,  I  did  not  speak  to  my 
husband  about  it,  because  he  would  never  take  any  notice. 

What? — He  never  used  to  take  any  notice  when  I  said  anything  to 
him;  he  always  had  other  things  to  think  of. 

I  thought  you  told  us  just  now  that  he  told  you  why  didn't  you  ask 
him  to  change  the  note? — On  this  one  occasion. 

Then,  you  see,  you  had  another  note  to  change  within  a  few  days 
afterwards  ? — Yes. 

Did  you  ask  him  to  change  it  then? — No. 

Why  not  ? — Because  I  have  already  told  you ;  perhaps  he  was  not  in  ; 
he  may  have  been  out. 

According  to  what  you  are  telling  us,  it  was  all  so  strange  to  you  to 
change  a  «£5  note  that  you  gave  a  false  name  and  address? — You  see,  this 
is  it,  when  I  once  gave  the  false  name  and  address  I  had  to  keep  it  up, 
I  could  not  change  it  then  back  into  my  own  name;  if  I  could  1  would 
have  done,  quick. 

You  had  never  changed  a  note  at  Garner  &  Somerfield's  before? — No, 
but  I  had  changed  it  at  the  Post  Office,  hadn't  I  ? 

What  would  that  have  to  do  with  changing  the  note  at  Garner  & 
Somerfield's? — It  was  already  another  one,  and  I  could  not  change  my 
name  after  I  had  given  the  first  name. 

They  would  not  know  anything  about  your  giving  a  false  name  to  the 
Post  Office? — I  do  not  know  what  they  do. 

Let  me  suggest  to  you  that  if  you  had  adopted  the  false  name  in  order 
to  prevent  the  notes  being  traced  to  you,  it  would  be  useful  to  go  on  in  the 
same  false  name  and  address  that  you  had  given.  You  see  that? — I  don't 
quite  understand  what  you  say. 

Supposing  you  wanted  to  conceal  that  you  were  passing  these  notes, 
it  would  be  a  useful  thing  to  do  to  give  a  false  name  and  address,  wouldn't 
it? — Yes. 

In  point  of  fact,  do  you  know,  with  this  second  note  which  you 
changed  at  Garner  &  Somerfield's,  you  gave  another  address,  "12  Ever- 
shot  Road,"  not  18? — Well,  that  was  not  with  any  wrong  intention  of  being 
12  instead  of  18;  it  was  meant  to  be  18,  not  12. 

243 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Margaret  A. Seddon 

You  wrote  that  yourself,  with  your  own  handwriting? — As  far  as  I 
can  remember,  I  did. 

It  has  been  proved ;  if  you  have  any  doubt  about  it  you  shall  see  it  1 — 
No,  I  will  not  doubt  it,  because  I  know  I  did  write  some. 

Did  you  during  October,  November,  and  December  change  a  number 
of  notes? — If  Miss  Barrow  gave  them  to  me,  then,  of  course,  I  would 
change  them.  She  never  liked  having  notes ;  she  wanted  gold. 

Just  think  a  little,  Mrs.  Seddon.  Do  you  mean  that? — Well,  as  far 
as  I  could  understand  Miss  Barrow  she  always  wanted  to  have  gold ;  she 
did  not  want  to  have  notes,  and  that  is  why  she  gave  them  to  me  to  cash. 

Where  did  you  think  she  was  getting  the  notes  from? — I  couldn't  tell 
you;  I  had  no  idea.  I  never  went  into  Miss  Barrow's  business. 

Did  you  ever  ask  her? — No,  I  never  asked  her. 

Did  she  ever  tell  you? — No,  she  never  told  me. 

Did  you  say  anything  to  your  husband  about  this  large  number  of 
notes  that  you  were  cashing  for  her? — No. 

You  knew  that  he  was  in  confidential  business  relationship  with  her, 
did  you  not? — Yes,  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  her  business  transactions 
whatever. 

You  knew  that  your  husband ? — They  were  going  on,  yes. 

Did  you  usually  give  her  gold? — Not  always. 

You  made  up  the  £5  sometimes  with  a  half-sovereign  change  in  silver, 
I  suppose? — Yes. 

Did  you  know  that  during  this  same  time  your  husband  was  getting 
£5  notes  from  her? — Yes. 

At  the  same  time? — It  was  for  rent. 

Every  time  the  12s.  was  due  do  you  mean  he  got  a  £5  note  from  her? 
— Sometimes  she  would  give  him  a  £5  note. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  don't  think  my  learned  friend  is  putting  it 
accurately. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  what  I  have  got  down — "  I  knew  that 
he  was  getting  £5  notes  from  her  sometimes  when  her  rent  was  due." 

The  WITNESS — Yes,  that  is  right. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GE>TERAL — Did  he  tell  you  that? — No. 

How  did  you  know  it? — Only  through  what  I  heard  here  yesterday. 

You  mean  you  didn't  know  it  until  you  heard  it  yesterday? — No. 

Does  it  come  to  this,  that  you  didn't  know  your  husband  was  getting 
£5  notes  from  her,  and  he  did  not  know  you  were  getting  £5  notes  from 
her  ? — No ;  my  husband  didn't  know  that  Miss  Barrow  was  giving  me  £5 
notes  to  cash. 

In  March,  1911,  you  signed  another  £5  note  in  the  name  of  "M. 
Scott,  18  Evershott  Road"? — I  cannot  swear  to  dates;  I  didn't  dispute 
them. 

Have  you  any  reason  to  doubt  it?  You  can  have  them  produced  to 
you.  All  this  has  been  proved? — Yes,  I  know. 

That  is  "M.  Scott,  18  Evershott  Road."  Do  you  know  that  during 
the  month  of  April,  1911 — let  me  call  your  attention  to  this — by  that  time 
you  had  got  pretty  used  to  cashing  £5  notes,  hadn't  you? — I  suppose  I 
had. 

And  during  this  month  of  April  you  cashed  three  £5  notes,  which  were 
244 


Evidence  for   Defence, 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

endorsed  by  you  with  a  false  name  and  address;  why  was  that? — Because, 
as  I  have  told  you,  when  I  first  gave  the  wrong  name  and  address  I  had 
still  to  keep  that  name  and  address. 

On  8th  April,  1911,  at  Rackstraw's,  that  is  a  new  one? — Yes. 

You  had  never  been  there? — No,  that  was  the  first  time  I  had  changed 
one  there. 

Why  did  you  give  them  a  false  name  and  address? — You  see  I  had 
already  given  at  the  shops  where  I  was  not  known  my  wrong  name  and 
address,  and  I  gave  at  the  shops  which  knew  me  my  right  name  and  address ; 
they  didn't  ask  me,  because  they  didn't  want  to,  so  I  still  had  to  keep  up 
the  same  name  and  address. 

You  had  not  been  to  Rackstraw's  with  a  £5  note  before? — No,  but  I 
still  kept  up  that  name.  They  didn't  know  me. 

By  that  time — the  occasion  at  Rackstraw's — you  had  changed  a  very 
considerable  number  of  £5  notes — something  like  eighteen? — I  didn't  know 
how  many  I  had  changed. 

When  you  go  to  Rackstraw's,  and  Rackstraw's  ask  you  for  your  name 
and  address,  why  do  you  give  a  false  one  then? — Because  what  I  have 
already  told  you;  when  I  first  gave  a  false  name  and  address  I  had  to  keep 
it  up.  I  cannot  give  you  any  other  explanation  than  that. 

Do  you  know  that  there  was  no  such  person  as  "  M.  Scott"  living  at 
"  18  Evershott  Road"  at  the  time? — By  what  I  have  heard  in  Court. 

Did  you  ever  inquire  whether  there  was  such  a  person? — No. 

All  the  time  you  were  passing  this  false  name  and  address? — No,  I 
never  inquired  at  all. 

It  would  make  it  very  difficult  to  trace  those  notes  with  the  name  of 
"Scott"  at  Evershott  Road  at  the  back,  wouldn't  it? — I  didn't  understand 
anything  about  it. 

Now,  altogether  during  this  time  you  had  cashed  twenty-seven  notes 
for  her.  You  are  cashing  notes  during  every  month,  beginning  from 
October  up  to  the  end?  Do  you  know  that? — I  suppose  I  was  if  you  have 
got  them  there.  They  were  only  just  as  Miss  Barrow  gave  them  to  me. 

And  during  the  whole  of  this  time  are  we  to  understand  that  you 
never  said  a  word  to  your  husband  about  it? — I  never  mentioned  it  to  my 
husband  at  all ;  I  didn't  tell  my  husband  everything  I  did. 

You  were  living  in  the  house  with  him? — Yes,  but  he  never  told  me 
everything  he  did. 

Why  should  not  you  have  told  him  what  you  had  done? — I  don't  know. 

Here  was  this  person  living  on  the  second  floor  with  you,  paying  this 
12s.  rent  according  to  you,  giving  you  bank  notes  every  month  in  the  year, 
and  you  bringing  back  gold  to  her? — Quite  right. 

You  knew  your  husband  was  paying  her  gold? — Paying  her  gold? 

Yes,  paying  her  gold  for  her  annuity? — Oh,  yes,  for  her  annuity. 

So  I  mean,  according  to  you,  there  was  a  considerable  amount  of  gold 
coming  into  the  house  in  exchange  for  notes  as  well  as  the  gold  he  was 
giving  her? — Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

Were  you  anxious  at  all  about  this  gold  that  was  coming  into  the 
house? — No,  I  was  not  Miss  Barrow's  keeper. 

You  were  not  anxious  at  all  as  to  what  would  happen  to  it? — Miss 
BarroVs  affairs  never  concerned  me,  not  whatever. 

245 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Did  you  know  whether  your  husband  was  anxious? — No,  I  didn't  know; 
he  done  her  transactions,  and  that  is  all  I  know. 

According  to  your  story,  at  an  early  date  he  was  anxious — from  the 
time  that  the  Hooks  were  going  when  she  brought  down  this  cash  box? — 
My  husband  refused  to  take  it  until  Miss  Barrow  counted  the  money  that 
was  in  it. 

But  she  never  did? — No,  I  never  seen  it  after  she  took  it  back  upstairs 
again. 

You  remember  the  £216  which  was  drawn  out  on  19th  June,  1911? — 
Yes,  quite  well. 

Do  you  remember  that  gold  being  brought  into  the  house? — Yes. 

Was  your  husband  anxious  about  that  £old  being  brought  into  the 
house? — He  didn't  wish  her  to  have  it  in  the  house. 

Why  not? — He  said  it  was  not  safe,  she  had  a  right  to  put  it  in  some 
other  bank;  there  were  plenty  of  good  banks,  such  as  the  Bank  of  England 
and  other  banks. 

Did  you  hear  him  say  that? — Yes,  I  was  coming  out  of  the  dining-room. 

But  did  you  say  to  him,  "  I  know  she  must  have  a  lot  of  gold,  as  I 
have  constantly  been  changing  notes  into  gold  for  her"? — No. 

Why  not? — I  never  thought  about  anything  like  that;  it  did  not 
concern  me  at  all — Miss  Barrow's  business. 

Don't  you  see  that  your  husband  at  this  time,  according  to  your 
story,  is  anxious  about  the  gold  which  has  been  brought  into  the  house? — 
I  am  not  responsible  for  my  husband. 

No,  but  don't  you  see  that  he  was  fearful  of  its  being  stolen? — Yes. 

You  understood  that? — Yes. 

And  you  knew  he  was  anxious,  according  to  you,  that  there  should  not 
be  gold  in  the  house  upstairs  in  her  room? — Yes,  I  quite  understand  what 
you  mean. 

I  want  to  know,  if  that  is  the  case,  and  you  had  been  changing  notes 
for  her  up  to  that  date  into  gold,  why  you  didn't  tell  him  that  you  had  been 
changing  these  notes  and  giving  her  gold  for  the  notes,  and  there  must  be 
other  gold  upstairs? — It  had  nothing  to  do  with  me  at  all. 

You  never  troubled  yourself  about  it? — No,  I  never  troubled  with  Miss 
Barrow's  business  whatever. 

Did  you  go  on  during  that  very  month  and  the  next  month  cashing 
more  notes  for  her? — If  you  have  got  them  here  I  must  have  done;  I  cannot 
tell  you  the  dates. 

In  July  you  turned  three  into  gold  for  her? — I  cannot  tell  you  the 
dates,  or  how  often. 

And  four  in  August? — Yes.     I  cannot  tell  you  the  dates. 

Did  it  strike  you  as  curious  that  with  all  that  gold  that  she  had  upstairs 
she  should  be  changing  notes  into  gold? — I  never  knew  what  Miss  Barrow 
had. 

You  knew  she  had  got  the  £216 — you  went  with  her? — Yes,  I  went 
with  her  to  draw  that. 

You  knew  she  had  got  that? — Yes. 

You  thought  she  had  got  that  up  to  her  death? — As  far  as  I  know  of. 

And  more? — I  couldn't  tell  you. 

But  you  yourself  had  changed  notes  into  gold  for  her? — Yes,  but  then 
246 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

you  must  remember  Miss  Barrow  went  out,  and  I  was  not  responsible  for 
what  Miss  Barrow  did. 

Nobody  suggests  you  were,  but  there  was  a  certain  amount  of  gold 
had  been  given  by  you  to  her ? — Not  given. 

Given  by  you  to  her  in  exchange  for  notes;  that  is  right? — Yes. 

Besides  that,  you  knew,  of  course,  your  husband  was  paying  her 
money? — Yes,  the  annuity. 

So  that,  according  to  that,  when  she  died  you  would  have  expected 
to  find  a  very  substantial  sum  of  gold  there,  wouldn't  you? — Well,  I  suppose 
there  should  have  been. 

Do  you  remember  witnessing  Miss  Barrow's  signature  to  a  document 
not  very  long  after  she  came  to  live  in  the  house  with  you  ? — I  do  remember 
one. 

You  have  talked  about  it.  You  have  said  in  chief  that  there  were  two 
documents — the  annuity  certificate  and  the  will — which  you  had  witnessed? 
— Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

Is  the  annuity  certificate  you  are  speaking  of  something  that  you 
witnessed  shortly  after  she  came  to  live  there? — No,  I  think  you  are 
referring  to  the  time  that  my  brother  signed  a  paper. 

That  is  another  document? — Yes;  but  I  don't  think  I  signed  the  one 
my  brother  signed. 

Your  husband  has  told  us  that  you  witnessed  Miss  Barrow's  signature? 
—Yes,  I  believe  I  did  witness  Miss  Barrow's  signature,  but  not  the  one 
my  brother  did. 

But  about  the  same  time? — I  don't  know  whether  it  was  the  same 
day  or  the  day  after. 

Either  the  same  day  or  the  day  after;  it  does  not  matter.  Was  that 
her  signature  to  a  document  about  the  annuity — the  first  one? — I  couldn't 
tell  you. 

You  knew,  of  course,  that  your  husband  was  paying  an  annuity  to 
Miss  Barrow? — I  don't  know  whether  it  was  at  that  time  or  not  when 
this  transaction  was  finished  with,  as  far  as  I  know. 

Will  you  tell  us  when  you  think  the  annuity  was  paid  from? — It  was 
when  I  was  in  bed  confined;  I  cannot  just  tell  you.  You  see,  I  am  not 
acquainted  with  that  business ;  I  was  not  mixed  up  in  it  at  all. 

But  you  knew  it  was  being  paid? — Yes,  I  knew  that  my  husband  paid 
it,  but  I  couldn't  tell  you  what  date  or  what  day. 

I  don't  want  you  to  tell  me  the  details  of  it,  but  you  did  know,  in 
point  of  fact,  that  at  some  time,  at  any  rate,  in  1911,  he  was  paying  her 
an  annuity? — Yes. 

And  that  he  had  to  pay  her  this  sum  of  money  so  long  as  she  lived? — 
Yes,  that  is  right,  and  after,  if  anything  happened  to  my  husband,  it  was 
to  come  from  his  estate.  You  know  I  don't  understand  the  transaction, 
but  it  was  still  to  be  paid. 

Do  you  remember  that  document  being  torn  up? — Yes,  my  husband 
tore  it  up. 

The  one  that  you  witnessed  Miss  Barrow's  signature  to? — Yes. 

It  was  very  shortly  after  that  that  your  first  transaction  with  the  £5 
notes  took  place  ? — I  couldn't  tell  you  when  it  first  took  place,  only  by  you 
going  back  to  the  dates. 

247 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

It  was  soon  after  Miss  Barrow  came? — No,  it  was  not. 

Miss  Barrow  came  at  the  end  of  July,  1910? — Yes,  now  I  can  remember. 

You  are  speaking  as  to  the  time  when  your  brother  was  there  and 
witnessed  a  document;  that  was  in  September  of  1910? — I  cannot  tell  you 
the  dates  or  months. 

Was  it,  at  any  rate,  about  that  time  that  you  began  to  change  £5 
bank  notes? — No,  I  think  it  was  soon  after  Miss  Barrow  came  to  live 
with  us. 

That  you  did  what? — That  I  started  to  change  the  bank  notes. 

How  long  after? — I  don't  know  whether  it  was  a  month  or  two 
months;  I  cannot  recollect. 

We  can  tell.    Where  was  it  you  changed  the  first  one? — At  Noakes. 

That  we  know  was  on  12th  October.  Your  daughter  Maggie  did  the 
cooking  for  her  right  up  to  the  1st  September,  except  on  a  few  occasions? — 
Yes. 

Were  the  other  occasions  when  your  daughter  was  out,  or  when  there 
was  something  special  to  cook? — No,  perhaps  Miss  Barrow  would  want 
a  suet  pudding  cooked. 

She  had  her  meals  upstairs? — Yes. 

Maggie  used  to  cook  them  in  the  kitchen  next  door? — Quite  right. 

And  she  and  Ernie  used  to  have  them ? — In  this  little  kitchen. 

That  was  the  sort  of  life  she  was  leading? — Yes. 

She  didn't  go  out  at  night? — Yes,  she  did  go  out  at  night. 

Did  she  go  out  much  ? — She  used  to  take  the  boy  out  at  night. 

Now  I  want  to  ask  you,  were  you  in  the  habit  of  using  fly-papers  in 
your  house? — Never. 

Do  you  mean  that  you  never  had  any  at  all  ? — I  never  bought  fly-papers 
at  all  until  I  bought  them  for  Miss  Barrow. 

Are  you  sure  of  that? — Positive — sure. 

And  when  were  the  first  ones  you  bought  for  Miss  Barrow? — About 
4th  September;  she  had  been  in  bed;  it  was  on  the  Monday  or  Tuesday,  I 
am  not  quite  certain. 

On  Monday  or  Tuesday,  that  is  4th  or  5th  September? — The  4th  it 
would  be. 

Those  were  the  first  fly-papers  you  had  bought? — In  my  life. 

Or  used  in  your  house? — Or  used  in  our  house. 

That  you  are  clear  about? — Quite  clear. 

Of  any  sort  or  kind? — Of  any  sort  or  kind,  yes. 

Were  they  the  first  you  had  ever  seen  in  your  house? — Yes. 

According  to  what  you  have  told  us,  you  bought  these  fly-papers  at 
Mr.  Meacher's? — Yes. 

Is  he  here? — I  couldn't  tell  you. 

I  understood  you  to  say  the  shop  was  in  Stroud  Green  Road? — Yes, 
round  the  corner. 

Are  there  two  shops  of  Meacher's  in  the  Stroud  Green  Road? — I  don't 
know;  I  only  went  to  the  first  one  round  the  corner. 

Is  that  one  you  went  to  the  one  to  the  right — do  you  turn  to  the  right 
when  you  go  from  your  house? — This  side  (indicating). 

Well,  that  is  the  right.     Is  that  61  Stroud  Green  Road? — I  couldn't 
tell  you  the  number. 
248 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Have  you  been  in  the  habit  of  dealing  there? — Several  things  I  have 
bought  there. 

Had  you  bought  white  precipitate  powder  there  before? — Yes. 

At  that  shop? — Yes;  I  bought  white  precipitate  there. 

I  want  to  understand  you;  were  these  fly-papers  the  only  fly-papers 
that  were  ever  in  Miss  Barrow's  room,  according  to  you? — That  is  quite 
positive — the  truth — the  only  fly-papers  that  were  ever  in  Miss  Barrow's 
room  were  the  four  that  were  bought. 

They  were  not  renewed  at  all? — Not  at  all,  no. 

Did  you  ever  send  Maggie  for  the  fly-papers? — Never  in  my  life. 

Did  Maggie  ever  go  for  fly-papers? — No,  no,  no. 

Never  in  her  life? — No,  no. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — One  moment;  be  calm? — I  never  sent 
Maggie  for  fly-papers  in  my  life — if  this  was  the  last  day  I  had  to  live, 
I  never  sent  my  daughter  for  fly-papers. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  never  sent  her,  and  she  never  went, 
according  to  you? — No,  not  to  my  knowledge  at  all — never  went. 

What? — Not  to  my  knowledge,  Maggie  never  bought  fly-papers. 

Or  went  for  fly-papers? — No. 

Didn't  she  on  6th  December? — For  Mr.  Saint. 

Mr.  Saint  is  the  solicitor  for  you  and  your  husband? — Yes,  that  is 
right. 

Did  you  read  the  directions  on  the  fly-papers  when  you  bought  them? 
— No,  the  man  in  the  chemist's  told  me  to  put  water  on  them.  I  never 
read  no  directions  on  the  paper  at  all. 

Did  he  tell  you  to  moisten  them? — Yes,  he  told  me  to  moisten  them 
with  a  little  water. 

And  that  is  what  you  did? — Yes. 

And  did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  they  were  left  from  the  4th  or 
5th  of  September,  the  Monday  or  the  Tuesday,  until  after  Miss  Barrow's 
death? — Until  the  morning  of  Miss  Barrow's  death. 

Who  moved  them  away  then? — I  did. 

Were  all  four  fly-papers  in  the  one  soup  plate  then? — In  the  soup 
plate,  yes. 

And  you  had  begun  by  putting  them  single  in  saucers? — Yes,  two  on 
the  mantelpiece  and  two  on  the  chest  of  drawers. 

Then  you  say  you  had  an  accident  on  the  Tuesday? — Yes,  Monday  or 
Tuesday,  I  don't  know  which. 

On  the  Tuesday  is  what  you  said;  it  was  the  12th.  I  do  not  mind 
which  it  is? — Monday  or  Tuesday;  I  believe  it  was  Tuesday. 

That  is  what  you  have  said.  Then  you  put  them  all  four  together  in 
one  soup  plate? — Yes. 

Was  the  object  of  putting  them  singly  in  saucers  to  make  them 
useful? — No,  you  see  the  water  used  to  dry  up  off  them,  and  then  I  used 
to  put  more  water  on  them. 

First  of  all,  you  put  them  in  saucers  separately,  moistening  them,  and 
put  them,  as  you  have  told  us,  two  on  the  mantelpiece  and  two  on  the 
drawers? — Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

So  that  you  could  get  the  best  use  out  of  the  four  papers;  that  was 

249 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

the  object  of  it? — No,  that  is  not  the  object  of  it  at  all.     You  see,  I  had 
an  accident;  I  knocked  one  down. 

I  don't  think  you  are  following  the  question;  I  am  not  asking  you 
about  the  soup  plate;  I  am  asking  you  about  before  that.  When  you  first 
took  them  up  into  the  room  you  put  one  fly-paper  on  to  one  saucer? — Yes. 

You  repeated  that  four  times? — No;  four  different  fly-papers. 

Yes,  four  different  fly-papers  in  four  different  saucers? — Yes,  that's 
right. 

And  you  moistened  the  fly-paper  in  each  case? — Yes. 

And  I  say  the  object  of  doing  that  was  to  make  the  four  papers  useful ; 
that  is  what  you  did  it  for? — Yes,  put  it  on  the  top  of  the 

Now,  I  want  to  know  why  did  you  take  the  four  fly-papers  and  put 
them  into  one  soup  plate  on  the  Tuesday? — Because,  as  I  have  told  you,  I 
had  an  accident.  I  knocked  one  off,  and  I  felt  I  could  not  be  bothered  with 
them,  and  I  emptied  them  all  into  one  soup  plate,  and  picked  the  one  up 
that  I  dropped. 

Just  follow,  you  had  got  the  two  on  the  mantelpiece,  according  to  you? 
—Yes. 

You  knocked  one  over? — Yes. 

Did  you  put  it  into  the  saucer  of  the  other  one? — No,  I  put  it  into 
the  soup  plate. 

But  had  you  a  soup  plate  there  at  the  time? — I  went  downstairs  and 
got  a  soup  plate. 

Had  you  been  repeatedly  moistening  these  fly-papers  during  this 
time? — Yes,  because,  you  see,  they  dry  up  because  of  the  heat  of  the  room. 

Was  it  you  who  moistened  them? — Yes,  I  always  moistened  them. 

Then  on  this  date,  the  12th,  you  take  all  four  fly-papers,  and,  as  I 
understand  you,  you  put  all  four  fly-papers  into  one  soup  plate? — Yes, 
that  is  right. 

And  moistened  them? — Yes. 

Was  that  to  make  the  solution  stronger? — I  don't  know  what  you  mean. 

Was  that  to  make  the  water  that  was  on  the  fly-papers  stronger? — 
You  see,  when  I  put  them  in  the  soup  plate  there  was  not  much  water  on 
them,  and  then  I  put  more  water  on. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BTJCKNILL — What  the  learned  Attorney  means  is  this, 
four  fly-papers  in  one  saucer  with  the  same  amount  of  water  would  make 
it  worse  for  the  flies — they  would  die  sooner? — Yes. 

Did  you  do  it  for  that  purpose? — The  flies  were  nearly  all  gone.  I 
did  it  for  convenience. 

You  said  before  that  you  were  bothered  with  them,  so  you  put  them 
all  four  into  one  plate? — Yes. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Did  you  say  that  the  flies  were  all  gone? 
— There  were  not  so  many  flies  in  the  room. 

A  good  many  had  died? — Yes. 

I  suggest  to  you,  having  the  two  on  the  mantelpiece  and  one  having 
gone ? — That  only  left  one  on  the  mantelpiece. 

It  did  not  interfere  with  the  two  on  the  drawers? — No,  it  did  not 
interfere  with  the  two  on  the  drawers. 

Why  did  you  interfere  with  the  two  on  the  drawers? — Because  I  put 
them  altogether  to  save  having  so  many  saucers  about. 
250 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Do  you  know  Thorley's  shop  in  the  Stroud  Green  Road? — No,  I  have 
never  seen  Thorley's  shop. 

Do  you  know  Meacher's  second  shop  in  the  Stroud  Green  Road? — 
No ;  I  don't  know  Meacher's  second  shop. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Thorley's  shop  is  in  a  different  place  altogether. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Just  round  the  corner. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Crouch  Hill. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  about  what 
happened  during  this  illness.  The  2nd  September  was  the  first  day  she 
was  in  bed  during  the  whole  time  she  was  with  you? — Except  for  her 
bilious  attacks  once  a  month — she  was  bad  once  a  month. 

She  used  to  have  sick  headaches  or  something  of  that  kind? — No, 
she  used  to  be  sick — a  proper  sick,  bilious  attack. 

About  once  a  month? — Every  month,  yes. 

During  the  whole  time  from  the  2nd  September  you  had  been  in 
attendance? — Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

Had  you  been  up  all  night  with  her  at  all? — I  got  up  in  the  middle 
of  the  night. 

Often? — Once  or  twice. 

Do  you  mean  once  or  twice  during  the  night,  or  once  or  twice  during 
the  time? — No,  during  the  night. 

Was  Ernie  Grant  sleeping  with  her  during  the  whole  time? — Yes, 
it  was  Ernie  who  used  to  call  me. 

Did  she  say  anything  about  her  personal  belongings  on  the  llth, 
the  day  when  the  will  was  made  ? — It  was  on  the  Sunday  that  I  think  she 
first  mentioned  it. 

What  did  she  say? — She  wanted  to  know  if  she  could  have  a  will 
made  out  as  regards  the  furniture  for  the  boy  and  for  the  girl — also  some 
jewellery  she  had. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  she  could  have  a  will  made  out? — 
For  Ernest  and  Hilda  Grant. 

For  furniture  and ? — Jewellery.  Of  course,  I  told  her  I  couldn't 

give  her  any  information  on  it,  so  I  said  I  would  tell  Mr.  Seddon.  So 
I  went  down  and  told  Mr.  Seddon  what  she  had  said,  so  he  said  he 
wouldn't  be  bothered  just  at  that  time ;  he  was  busy  I  think  in  his  office ; 
in  fact,  I  don't  think  he  went  up  at  all  on  the  Sunday,  he  went  up  on 
the  Monday. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  heard  the  will  read? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  anything  more  about  it  than  what  you  have  told  us? — 
No,  none  whatever. 

I  am  going  to  ask  you  about  the  13th,  that  is  the  Thursday ;  you 
know  the  day  I  am  speaking  of? — The  day  Miss  Barrow  died. 

The  day  before? — That  is  the  Wednesday. 

She  died  on  the  morning  of  the  14th? — Yes. 

She  was  worse  than  she  had  been,  wasn't  she? — She  seemed  rather 
weaker — the  diarrhoea — but  she  was  not  so  sick.  That  is  what  I  told 
the  doctor. 

Pains  in  the  stomach? — Stomach,  yes. 

That  had  been  going  on  then  for  a  pretty  long  time? — On  and  off. 

From  2nd  September? — On  and  off  during  the  time  she  was  ill. 

251 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

When  the  doctor  left  did  you  think  there  was  any  fear  of  her  death 
within  twenty-four  hours? — None  whatever. 

Did  she  get  worse  after  the  doctor  left? — I  never  noticed. 

Did  she  continue  to  complain  about  pains  in  her  stomach? — You 
see,  I  was  not  with  Miss  Barrow,  you  must  remember,  all  day  long. 

You  were  with  her  in  the  evening? — No,  not  until  twelve  o'clock. 
At  about  nine  or  ten  I  gave  her  a  dose  of  medicine — about  ten  o'clock — 
and  I  never  seen  her  then  till  twelve  o'clock. 

Let  us  see  what  happened  in  the  evening.  Your  husband  went  out  to 
the  theatre? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

You  were  at  home? — Yes. 

You  were  looking  after  her? — Yes,    I   was. 

She  complained  a  good  deal,  didn't  she,  before  your  husband  came 
home? — No,  not  that  I  know  of. 

Didn't  she  say  that  night,  "I  am  dying"? — Oh,  yes,  that  was  at 
twelve  o'clock ;  I  thought  you  were  referring  to  earlier  than  that.  That 
night  at  twelve  o'clock  she  said,  "  I  am  dying." 

Was  she  complaining  a  good  deal ? — Well,  I  had  been  up  on  and 

off  to  see  her,  putting  flannels  on  her  stomach. 

Before  your  husband  came  back? — Yes. 

So  she  was  complaining   a   good   deal? — Yes. 

Of  bad  pains  in  the  stomach? — It  was  nothing  unusual  to  hear  Miss 
Barrow  complaining  all  the  time  she  was  ill;  in  fact,  she  would  always 
want  you  to  sit  and  be  fanning  her  all  the  time.  Of  course,  I  couldn't 
always  be  doing  that. 

But  on  this  night  of  the  13th  she  was  worse  than  she  had  been? — 
After  twelve  o'clock. 

You  knew  from  the  time  the  doctor  had  come  in  the  morning  she 
was  worse  than  she  had  been? — No,  she  did  not  seem  any  worse  after  the 
doctor  had  been  up  to  midnight. 

No,  but  when  the  doctor  came  in  the  morning  of  the  13th,  I  think 
you  have  already  told  me  he  found  her  rather  worse  on  the  morning  of 
the  13th? — Rather  worse,  no.  He  did  not  find  her  rather  worse — 
somewhere  about  the  same. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — "  I  found  the  diarrhoea  worse — but  no  complaint 
of  the  sickness;  the  sickness  was  not  worse,  but  only  the  diarrhoea." 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — He  said  he  found  her  rather  worse. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — The  diarrhoea  was  worse. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Let  me  read  my  note.  I  am  much  obliged 
to  you,  but  I  think  I  would  rather  read  my  own  note  on  this  part.  I  will 
tell  you  what  I  have.  "  On  the  13th  the  diarrhoea  had  come  on  again. 
She  did  not  seem  to  be  in  much  trouble.  I  gave  her  a  mixture.  She 
had  a  little  return  of  the  sickness.  I  gave  her  a  chalky  mixture — the 
strength  was  about  the  same.  She  was  weaker  on  account  of  the  diarrhoea. 
I  saw  Mrs.  Seddon  on  that  day,  and  I  simply  said  Miss  Barrow  was  worse 
and  that  I  would  send  her  a  mixture  to  be  taken  after  each  motion.  I 
gave  no  diet  instructions  on  that  day.  She  was  in  a  little  danger,  but 
not  in  a  critical  condition."  I  think  that  is  what  he  said. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Those  are  the  words  as  near  as  possible. 
252 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

The  only  words  left  out  are  immaterial,  because  your  lordship  has  the 
actual  words,  "  She  was  rather  worse." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — It  is  pretty  accurate,  is  it  not? 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — Yes,  "  I  simply  told  her  that  I  thought  the 
patient  was  worse,  and  I  would  send  her  up  a  diarrhoea  mixture."  (To 
the  witness) — You  remember  that? — Yes,  Dr.  Sworn  sent  it  for  the 
diarrhoea,  and  not  for  the  sickness. 

Dr.  Sworn  told  you  that  he  thought  the  patient  was  worse.  You 
have  heard  what  the  doctor  says  about  it? — Well,  you  see,  I  don't 
remember.  I  cannot  remember  everything  that  happened. 

You  see,  this  lady  had  been  ill  in  your  house  for  a  considerable  time? 
— Yes,  I  know. 

And  the  doctor,  coming  on  the  morning  of  the  13th,  and  saying  that 
he  found  her  rather  worse,  and  the  diarrhoea  being  rather  worse,  did 
that  alarm  you  at  all? — No,  because,  you  know,  Miss  Barrow  had  been  ill 
all  the  time — all  the  fourteen  days. 

But  he  told  you ? — She  had  worse  attacks  than  that. 

But  he  told  you  when  he  came  that  morning  that  he  found  her  worse  ? 
— I  don't  remember. 

But  he  certainly  did  not  find  her  better,  did  he? — Only  for  the 
sickness ;  that  stopped.  She  had  not  the  sickness.  She  had  diarrhoea. 

And  did  he  tell  you  she  was  getting  weaker,  and  that  he  found  her 
weaker? — No,  he  said  she  was  in  a  weak  condition. 

Then,  she  had  the  pains  on  and  off  during  the  whole  time  after  he 
left? — During  the  day. 

During  the  day  he  left? — Yes. 

And  diarrhoea,  I  suppose? — She  had  the  diarrhoea  and  these  pains  in 
the  bowels. 

Did  the  diarrhoea  get  worse? — No,  not  as  I  noticed. 

Before  your  husband  came  had  she  said  to  you,  "I  am  dying"? — 
Not  to  me,  no. 

To  whom  did  she  say  it? — You  see,  I  was  standing  at  the  front  door, 
waiting  for  my  husband  coming  in.  This  would  be  about  twelve  o'clock. 
I  heard  her  shout.  The  windows  were  open,  and  I  heard  her  shout, 
"Come  quick;  I'm  dying,"  so,  of  course,  I  went  upstairs.  I  asked  my 
sister-in-law  to  come  with  me,  but  she  did  not  care  to  come  at  first.  Then 
she  did  come ;  she  followed  me  up  after. 

Then  you  went  up  and  found  her  very  ill? — No;  she  was  just  the 
same  as  she  usually  was,  but  she  had  bad  pains  in  her  stomach,  and  she 
wanted  to  be  sick. 

Had  you  ever  heard  her  eay  before,  "Come  quick,  I'm  dying"? — 
No. 

Rather  an  alarming  statement  for  a  patient  who  had  been  ill  for  a 
number  of  days,  and  was  getting  worse? — No;  Miss  Barrow  would  always 
be  calling,  and  sometimes  I  would  never  answer  to  her  calls,  you  see. 

Did  you  tell  your  husband  about  it  when  he  came  in? — Yes,  I  did. 

Did  you  smile  at  it? — Well,  I  have  a  usual  way  of  smiling  at  almost 
everything,  I  think.  I  cannot  help  it.  It  is  my  ways.  No  matter  how 
serious  anything  was  I  think  I  would  smile ;  I  cannot  help  it. 

Do  I  understand  that  your  smile  was  merely  from  your  habit.  You 

253 


Trial   of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

did  not  mean  him  to  think  there  was  no  cause  for  anxiety? — No.  It  is 
always  my  way — always. 

A  way  that  he  would  understand? — He  knows  my  ways. 

Then  when  you  told  him  that  she  had  said  she  was  dying,  and  that 
you  had  heard  her  calling  this  out,  you  didn't  mean  him  to  think  lightly 
of  it? — Of  course,  you  must  remember  I  had  been  up  in  the  meantime  and 
attended  to  Miss  Barrow  once — what  she  wanted — after  hearing  her  call 
out  that  she  was  dying. 

I  want  to  understand  what  you  meant  your  husband  to  understand  ? — 
Yes. 

You  told  him  when  he  came  in  that  Miss  Barrow  had  called  out  she 
was  dying? — Yes. 

He  asked  you  whether  she  was? — And  I  said  "  No." 

And  smiled  ? — And  smiled  ;  it  is  my  usual  way  ;   I  cannot  help  it. 

But  you  smiled  at  the  idea  of  her  dying? — No,  I  did  not  smile  at  the 
idea  of  her  dying. 

Listen  to  the  question.  You  meant  him  to  understand  that  in  your 
opinion  she  was  not  dying? — She  was  not  dying,  certainly.  I  never  wish 
anybody  dead.  I  thought  too  much  of  Miss  Barrow.  I  waited  hand  and 
foot  on  her.  I  did  all  I  possibly  could  do  to  get  her  better. 

Did  you  go  to  bed  at  all  that  night  ? — On  and  off. 

How  long  was  it  after  your  husband  had  come  in  that  you  first  went 
up  to  her? — You  see,  when  Mr.  Seddon  came  in  from  the  theatre,  he  told 
my  sister-in-law  about  the  dispute  over  6d.  That  a  man  had  given 
him  the  wrong  change,  and  two  or  three  other  words  passed  between 
them,  and  then  I  think  Ernest  called  out  that  Chickie  wanted  me,  and 
then,  of  course,  my  husband  and  all  three  of  us  went  up  together. 

Was  that  immediately  after  he  came  in? — No,  it  was  a  few  minutes 
after. 

That  is  what  I  am  putting  to  you.  That  is  the  first  time? — I  know 
he  told  me  not  to  come  up  ;  he  told  me  to  lay  down  and  rest. 

Was  there  a  doctor  living  almost  opposite  your  house  in  Tollington 
Park? — Not  opposite,  I  don't  think. 

Very  near  by? — Somewhere  lower  down. 

Yes,    but   quite   close? — Yes. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCK^LL — In  the  same  road? — There  are  two  or 
three,  I  think. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — There  are  certainly  several? — Yes,  there 
is,  at  the  bottom  end  of  Tollington  Park. 

I  do  not  want  to  go  through  the  story  at  length.  You  went  up  alto- 
gether four  times  that  night? — Yes. 

Four  times,  counting  the  first  from  the  time  your  husband  came  in? — 
Yes. 

They  would  not  include  the  times  you  had  gone  up  before? — No. 

She  certainly  was  worse  that  night  than  she  had  ever  been? — Yes, 
she  was  worse  that  night  than  she  had  been  before. 

You  say  you  do  not  remember,  or  you  do  not  know  whether  your 
husband  gave  her  brandy  or  not? — He  gave  her  brandy,  but  I  don't  know 
whether  it  was  that  time  he  went  up  or  the  last  time. 

You  did  see  him  give  her  brandy  ? — Yes  ;  there  was  not  much  in  the 
254 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

bottle.  I  remember  him  saying  to  Miss  Barrow  that  it  would  have  to 
last  her  all  the  night,  so  he  only  gave  her  half  of  it. 

And  did  he  leave  the  rest  there  by  her? — Yes,  on  the  commode  where 
her  bottles  are. 

Was  it  gone  in  the  morning? — It  was  gone,  yes. 

She  had  drunk  it? — Yes;  this  must  have  been  the  time  when  she  was 
out  of  bed. 

Was  it  about  2  o'clock  in  the  morning  that  Ernie  was  sent  away 
for  the  last  time  from  his  bed  to  his  room? — Not  the  last,  I  don't  think — 
not  2  o'clock. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — What  time? — It  could  not  have  been, 
because  we  didn't  go  to  bed  until  between  half -past  and  2. 

Tell  the  jury  when  Ernie  was  sent  away  to  his  bed  the  last  time? — 
It  would  be  between  3  and  4 — just  before  she  went  off  into  this  sleep. 

Just  when  she  went  off  to  sleep? — Yes. 

Ernie  was  sent  away  to  his  bed? — It  was  after  she  was  lifted  up  off 
the  floor. 

That  follows.       Ernie  was  there  when  she  was  lifted  up? — Yes. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Did  you  say  at  the  inquest,  "  Miss  Barrow 
died  between  6  and  7  a.m.  on  14th  September;  I  and  my  husband  were 
present ;  we  were  the  only  people  in  the  room ;  both  of  us  had  been 
hanging  on  and  off  in  the  room.  The  boy  did  not  sleep  in  the  room  after 
2  o'clock"? — That  must  have  been  a  mistake;  that  was  not  what  was 
meant.  We  did  not  go  to  bed  till  after  that  took  place,  and  that  was 
the  first  time  Mr.  Seddon  told  Ernie  to  go  to  bed. 

You  did  say  it,  because  you  signed  the  paper? — I  must  have  said  it, 
certainly. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — "  I  did  say  before  the  coroner  that  the  boy 
did  not  sleep  in  the  room." 

Mr.   MARSHALL  HALL — It  says  in  my  copy  "bed." 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Then  the  copy  that  is  given  me  is  wrong.  My 
copy  says  "room." 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  doesn't  make  any  difference. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — "  I  did  say  before  the  coroner  that  the 
boy  did  not  sleep  in  the  bed  after  2  o'clock,  but  that  is  a  mistake"? — 
That  will  be  a  mistake,  because,  you  see,  that  would  be  the  first  time  my 
husband  told  him  to  go  to  his  own  bed. 

Because  2  o'clock  was  the  first  time? — Yes. 

Not  the  last? — No,  it  would  not  be  the  last. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  put  it  at  between  3  and  4  o'clock 
when  he  left  the  room  for  the  last  time? — For  the  last  time,  yes. 

And  is  it  right  that  from  that  time  until  the  death  you  were  in  the 
bedroom  ? — Yes. 

In  Miss  Barrow's  bedroom? — Yes.  I  sat  in  the  chair. 

And  was  your  husband  outside? — Standing  by  the  door. 

It  was  open,  as  we  have  heard? — Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

I  think  you  have  said  that  he  was  smoking  and  reading? — Yes. 

You  knew  by  that  time,  after  you  had  been  up  four  times  during  that 
night,  that  she  was  certainly  worse  than  she  had  been ;  weaker? — Yes,  she 
was  weaker,  certainly. 

255 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

You  had  been  called  up  the  last  time  by  Ernie  telling  you  she  wa« 
out  of  bed? — Yes. 

And  you  came  up  and  found  her  sitting  there,  as  you  described.  I 
don't  want  to  go  through  it  again? — That  is  quite  right,  yes. 

You  had  never  seen  that  before? — Previous  to  that  my  husband  stood 
outside  the  door  before  we  lifted  her  into  bed.  She  wanted  the  com- 
mode, and  I  helped  her  on  to  that,  and  I  called  my  husband  back  into 
the  room;  and  we  got  her  into  bed. 

I  thought  you  had  found  her  sitting  up  when  you  went  up? — Ye6, 
that  is  quite  right — in  a  sitting  position. 

And  the  boy  trying  to  hold  her  up? — Yes. 

And  the  boy  was  very  frightened? 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — When  she  was  sitting  on  the  floor  did  she 
appear  to  be  in  great  pain? — I  couldn't  tell  you.  She  wanted  to  use  the 
commode,  and  I  helped  her. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — She  was  complaining  all  that  night  of 
bad  pains  in  her  stomach? — Yes,  in  her  stomach,  which  I  attended  to  all 
the  night  through. 

I  want  to  understand  how  long  it  was  after  you  were  there  in  the 
room,  sitting  in  the  basket  chair,  before  she  began  to  do  what  you 
describe — snoring? — Well,  I  couldn't  give  you  a  stated  time. 

No,  I  do  not  want  the  stated  time,  but  I  want  to  get  some  idea  of 
the  time? — I  couldn't;  you  see  I  was  tired  and  sleepy  myself;  I  kept 
on  dozing,  you  know. 

Was  she  sleeping  peacefully  for  any  length  of  time  so  far  as  you 
know? — She  seemed  to  be  in  a  nice — just  a  quiet  sleep. 

There  was  no  reason  why  your  husband  should  not  go  down  to  bed, 
was  there? — My  husband  wanted  me  to  go  to  bed,  you  see. 

You  were  sitting  dozing  in  the  room? — Yes,  he  thought  that  she 
might  sleep  like  that  all  night — for  the  rest  of  the  morning. 

The  next  day  was  his ? — Office  day. 

So  far  as  I  follow  what  you  have  told  us  there  was  no  reason  why 
he  should  not  go  to  bed  if  you  were  going  to  sit  up  there  and  watch?— 
He  said  he  would  not  leave  me  in  the  room  alone. 

That  is  the  explanation  ? — And  he  kept  going  down  and  seeing  if  the 
baby  was  all  right. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  have  heard  people  snore  before,  I  dare 
say.  Did  you  ever  hear  anybody  snore  like  Miss  Barrow? — It  was  an 
ordinary  kind  of  snoring ;  it  seemed  to  be  coming  from  the  throat. 

It  didn't  frighten  you? — No,  I  never  dreamt  anything  was  wrong  like 
that. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — As  I  understand  you,  there  was  nothing 
alarming  about  her  snoring? — No. 

An  ordinary  kind  of  snore  ? — She  seemed  to  be  snoring  from  her  throat. 

I  want  to  understand  it.  Was  it  an  ordinary  kind  of  snoring  or 
not? — I  don't  know  what  you  would  call  it;  it  was  snoring  from  her 
throat — ordinary  snoring. 

You  have  heard  people  snore? — Yes,  but  everybody  don't  snore  alike. 

Was  it  that  kind  of  snoring  that  you  heard? — Yes. 

Nothing  to  alarm  you? — Nothing  whatever. 
256 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Then  you  must  have  been  very  shocked  when  you  found  she  was 
dead? — Yes,  I  was. 

Were  you  sure  she  was  dead  ? — I  really  could  not  believe  it  until  my 
husband  proved  by  the  lifting  of  her  eyelids  that  she  was  dead. 

All  that  happened  almost  immediately,  according  to  the  story  you 
have  told  us? — I  think  she  stopped  drawing  her  breath;  she  did  not 
breathe. 

Follow  me.  Was  that  the  first  thing  that  called  your  attention?  The 
stopping  of  her  breathing  ?  Then  your  husband  called  attention  to  it  ? — 
Yes,  and  he  lifted  the  eyelid. 

Immediately? — Yes,  and  I  told  you  the  remark  that  he  passed. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — "  Good  God,  she's  dead  "? — Yes. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  couldn't  believe  it? — No,  I  didn't; 
I  couldn't  believe  it. 

Did  you  ask  for  a  doctor? — My  husband  went  straight  away  to  Dr. 
Sworn. 

How  far  off  is  he? — Highbury. 

About  half  an  hour,  I  think,  we  have  been  told? — Yes,  I  expect  it  is. 

Now,  I  want  to  understand  this  from  you.  Do  you  mean  that  whilst 
you  were  sitting  there,  there  was  nothing  to  alarm  you  until  you  saw 
that  she  had  stopped  breathing? — Positively. 

No  indication  of  any  kind  before  that? — No,  it  was  the  first  sick 
room  I  had  ever  been  in  in  my  life. 

I  suggest  to  you  that  that  was  a  very  good  reason  why  you  should 
have  wanted  a  doctor  under  the  circumstances? — No. 

Because  you  had  so  little  experience? — I  never  gave  the  doctor 
a  thought. 

You  never  gave  the  doctor  a  thought? — No,  because  I  knew  Dr. 
Sworn  would  come  in  the  next  morning.  I  never  knew  Miss  Barrow 
was  dying. 

According  to  what  you  said,  you  went  down  below  and  saw  Mary 
Chater,  and  you  said  you  thought  she  had  passed  away.  You  were  not 
sure? — No;  Mr.  Seddon,  you  see,  had  gone  to  see  Dr.  Sworn. 

What? — I  expected  Dr.  Sworn  to  come  back  with  Mr.  Seddon. 

To  see  whether  she  was  really  dead  or  not? — Yes,  I  suppose  that 
would  be  it. 

Had  you  touched  her  at  all — had  you  felt  her? — No;  I  don't  know 
whether  I  put  my  handkerchief  up  to  her  or  not. 

You  cannot  remember? — Whether  it  was  before  or  after  Mr.  Seddon 
came  back. 

According  to  what  you  told  us,  you  know  it  could  not  have  been 
before;  if  he  said,  "Good  God,  she's  dead,"  and  with  that  he  hurried  off 
to  Dr.  Sworn,  and  you  were  in  doubt  whether,  or,  at  any  rate,  you 
were  not  certain  that  she  was  dead,  you  couldn't  have  tied  up  her  jaw 
before  that,  could  you? — No,  I  do  not  think  so. 

Do  you  think  you  tied  it  up  after  your  husband  came  back? — I 
don't  know  whether  it  was  when  Mrs.  Rutt  came;  I  cannot  remember. 

Either  when  Mrs.  Rutt  came  or  when  your  husband  came  back  you 
did  it? — We  went  up  together,  you  see. 

Then  the  search  for  the  money  started? — Yes. 

K  357 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Did  your  husband   say  he  was  going  to   look  for   the  money  1 — No, 
he  never  said  what  he  was  going  to  do. 

Did  he  tell  you  what  he  wanted  the  keys  of  the  trunk  for? — No. 

Was  the  key  of  the  cash  box  on  that  same  ring  as  the  key  of  the 
trunk? — I  believe  so. 

Whilst  the  keys  are  being  looked  for,  let  me  ask  you  this.     You  told 
us  that  £4  10s.  was  found  in  the  cash  box? — Yes. 

Did  you  see  where  in  the  cash  box  the  money  was  found? — In  the 
tray  part. 

Do  you  mean  inside  one  of  the  little  receptacles  in  the  tray? — Yes. 

And  nothing  on  the  top  of  the  tray? — Not  that  I  saw. 

Were  you  standing  looking  at  your  husband? — No,  we  were  by  the 
bed;  we  were  doing  Miss  Barrow. 

Did  you  see  him  actually  find  the  money? — Yes,  he  put  the  box  on 
the  bed. 

Was   the  body  on  the   other   side   of  the   bed? — The   body   was   this 
side  (indicating). 

The  body  was  the  one  side  and  he  put  the  cash  box  on  the  other? — 
Yes. 

Did  you  see  how  the  money  was  found — did  you  see  yourself  whether 
it  was  found  loose  or  wrapped  up? — No,  it  was  in  the  bag. 

Did  you  see  your  husband  take  the  bag  out? — Yes. 

So  far   as   you  know,  up   to   the  afternoon  that  was   all  the  money 
that  had  been   found? — Yes. 

You  knew  that  she  had  £10  on  2nd  September? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

And  she  had  not  been  out;  I  mean  she  had  not  been  able  to  spend 
any  money? — No,  only  what  she  gave  me  to  spend. 

How  much  -was  that? — I  cannot  count  it  up. 

I  mean  it  must  have  been  some  small  amounts? — Yes;  I  think  there 
was  Valentine's  beef  juice. 

Valentine's   beef   juice? — Yes,    2s.    lOd. 

And  did  she  give  you  gold  or  silver? — Silver. 

She  did  not  give  you  any  gold  at  all? — No. 

Was  she  taking  the  Valentine's  beef  juice  long? — No,   she  had  only 
two  bottles. 

About  how  many  days   had   she   been  taking   it? — I   could    not   say 
exactly;  I  couldn't  say  how  many  days. 

Was  it  several  days  before  she  died? — Oh  yes. 

That,  I  understand  from  you,  was  given  in  cold  water? — Yes. 

It  did  not  require  any  particular  preparation,    did  it? — Yes,    it  had 
to  be  mixed. 

It  had  to  be  mixed? — Yes,  it  had  to  be  mixed. 

You  took  a  spoonful  out  of  the  bottle  which  we  have  seen  produced? 
Yes 

We  know  from  what  you  have  told  us  that  this  was  given  in  cold 
water? — Yes,    cold  water,   by  the   doctor's  orders. 

How  often  a  day  did  she  used  to  take  this? — Only  once. 

When  was   it  taken? — In   the  afternoon. 

The  kitchen  next  to  Miss  Barrow's  room  had  a  gas  stove,   and  that 
was  used  for  heating  flannels? — Yes. 
258 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Was  it  also  used  for  boiling  water? — No,  I  never  boiled  water — 
only  just  to  heat  the  flannels. 

It  was  a  great  surprise  to  you,  was  it  not,  that  only  £4  10s.  was 
found  in  the  cash  box?— Yes. 

You  naturally  thought  there  would  be  a  great  deal  more  there? — 
I  thought  there  was  certainly  more. 

As  far  as  you  knew,  the  £216  would  still  be  there? — As  far  as  I 
knew. 

And,  as  far  as  you  knew,  at  any  rate,  a  good  part  of  the  gold  that 
you  had  brought  her  in  exchange  for  the  notes,  according  to  your  state- 
ment, should  have  been  there? — Yes,  it  should  have  been  there. 

And  also  the  £10  in  gold  that  was  paid  to  her  month  by  month  by 
your  husband? — Yes. 

And  I  suppose  I  may  take  it  that  it  was  rather  a  shock  to  you  to 
find  there  was  not  the  money  there? — Well,  my  husband  told  me  to 
search  the  place  to  see  if  there  was  not  more. 

Did  you  know  where  she  had  put  the  gold  which  she  got  on  2nd 
September? — No;  you  see,  I  was  not  always  in  her  room. 

Did  you  tell  your  husband  you  were  rather  surprised  at  this  small 
amount  of  money  being  found  there? — No,  I  never  mentioned  it. 

Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  it? — No,  only  he  said  it  was  funny 
what  had  become  of  it. 

Did  you  tell  him  then  that  you  had  changed  a  number  of  notes  into 
gold  for  her? — No. 

Never  said  a  word  to  him  about  it? — No,  not  a  word. 

Why  not? — Because  I  didn't  think  it  was  necessary.  My  husband 
didn't  tell  me  everything.  I  never  dreamt  to  tell  him  anything  at  all 
about  it. 

But,  you  see,  you  expected  to  find  a  considerable  sum  of  money 
in  gold  in  that  cash  box,  as  you  told  me? — Yes,  but  I  was  not  responsible 
for  what  Miss  Barrow  had  done.  She  used  to  go  out.  I  was  not 
responsible;  I  was  not  her  keeper.  I  never  knew  what  she  done  with 
her  money. 

Do  you  mean  to  say  you  never  had  any  conversation  with  your 
husband  at  this  time  about  the  money  that  ought  to  have  been  in  the 
box  ? — No ;  I  only  said  ' '  It  seems  strange ;  whatever  has  she  done  with 
it?  " 

Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  the  £216? — No,  he  only  said 
he  wondered  whatever  she  had  done  with  it. 

Or  about  the  £10  that  had  been  paid  her  on  the  2nd  September? — 
No,  I  don't  remember  that  being  mentioned. 

Can  you  tell  us  is  that  the  bunch  of  keys  (handed)  ? — I  know  them 
being  on  the  ring.  My  husband  has  not  got  a  ring  like  that. 

You  mean,  I  suppose,  being  on  a  ring  like  that,  you  think  they  are 
the  keys,  because  your  husband  has  not  got  a  ring  like  that? — He  has 
not  got  a  ring  like  that. 

Therefore,  you  mean  they  would  not  be  his? — Yes. 

Did  you  hear  your  husband  saying  anything  to  Mr.  Nodes  as  to  it 
being  necessary  for  him  to  consult  somebody  before  he  fixed  the  funeral? 
—No. 

259 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Now,  tell  me  about  the  afternoon  -when  you  had  another  search, 
and  when  you  told  us  that  the  three  sovereigns  were  found  wrapped  in 
tissue  paper? — Yes. 

Each  coin,  as  I  understand,  was  separately  wrapped  in  tissue  paper  1 
— Yes,  that  is  right. 

Did  they  look  as  if  they  had  been  wrapped  up  any  time? — No,  I 
couldn't  tell  you. 

And  the  £2  10s.  in  the  bag;  was  that  wrapped  in  tissue  paper  also! 
—Yes. 

Could  you  tell  whether  that  had  been  wrapped  up  any  time? — No. 

Did  you  ask  any  questions  in  the  house  on  this  day  as  to  whether 
anybody  knew  what  had  become  of  the  money? — There  was  nobody  in 
the  house  but  the  children  and  the  servant. 

That  means  you  did  not? — No. 

Are  we  to  understand  that  until  after  you  were  arrested  you  never 
spoke  to  your  husband  about  having  changed  these  notes? — Certainly — 
never. 

What? — I  am  positive  I  never  did. 

Didn't  you  talk  together  about  the  disappearance  of  this  money? — 
No. 

What? — We  have  said  on  several  occasions  it  was  funny  where  it 
went  to. 

Where  "it"  went  to — what  was  the  "it"? — Where  the  money — 
this  £216  that  she  drew  out  of  the  bank — had  gone  to. 

Didn't  you  say  to  your  husband,  "  And  besides  that  there  was  a 
lot  of  money  that  I  changed  for  her  into  gold"? — No. 

Not  a  word  about  it? — Not  a  word. 

We  have  heard  from  him  that  you  spoke  about  it  after  you  had  both 
been  arrested? — After  I  was  arrested. 

You  heard  what  he  said? — Yes. 

Was  that  right?  In  the  Court? — I  don't  remember  what  he  did 
say. 

I  will  tell  you  what  he  said ;  that  you  said  you  had  given  the  false 
name  and  address  because  you  didn't  want  everybody  to  know  your  busi- 
ness?— No,  I  do  not  think  that  is  exactly  what  I  said. 

And  that  you  didn't  want  everybody  to  know  who  you  were? — After 
giving  my  wrong  name  and  address. 

Did  you  say  this,  that  if  you  went  into  a  shop  where  you  were  not  known 
to  buy  a  small  article  you  didn't  want  everybody  to  know  who  you  were? 
— But,  you  see,  I  had  already  given  my  wrong  name  and  address. 

Did  you  say  that  to  him? — I  don't  remember:  you  see,  I  cannot 
remember  everything. 

Can  you  give  any  reason  why  you  should  not  have  told  him  then? — 
No,  no  reason — only  the  reason  what  I  have  given  you  before. 

That  is  the  reason  you  did  not  give  to  him ;  the  reason  you  give  us 
is  that  when  you  were  asked  to  change  a  note  you  had  never  done  it  before, 
and  you  gave  the  first  name  and  address  that  came  into  your  head? — That 
is  quite  right. 

That  is  not  the  explanation  that  you  gave  to  him  ? — No. 

According  to  what  he  has  said? — Well,  I  do  not  remember. 
260 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

You  cannot  give  any  other  explanation? — No,  no  other  explanation 
than  I  have  already  given. 

On  the  night  of  14th  September,  that  is,  the  day  of  the  death, 
you  went  to  the  music-hall  or  theatre,  did  you  not? — Yes,  I  did. 

Which  was  it? — The  Grand,  Islington. 

What  is  that? — A  music-hall. 

What  time  did  you  go  about? — About  8  o'clock. 

What  time  did  you  come  back? — Midnight. 

You  were  away  when  the  body  was  removed? — Yes. 

Did  you  know  the  body  was  going  to  be  removed  that  night? — Yea, 
I  knew  in  the  morning  Mr.  Nodes  was  going  to  take  it  away. 

About  what  time  was  it  when  your  husband  came  up  to  you  on  that 
day,  and  you  asked  him  to  lie  down — to  rest? — It  would  be  getting  on  for 
3  or  4  o'clock. 

Do  you  remember  on  loth  September,  that  is,  the  day  after,  going 
with  your  husband  to  the  jewellers? — Yes,  that  was  the  evening. 

Did  you  know  that  he  had  gone  earlier  in  the  day? — No. 

Did  he  tell  you  he  had  gone  to  have  the  ring  enlarged  1 — I  cannot  tell 
you  that.  I  cannot  remember ;  it  was  a  busy  day  for  me  that  day. 

Do  you  mean  in  the  household? — Yes. 

Then  you  went  about  the  watch? — Yes,  that  was  coming  back  after 
seeing  my  sister-in-law  off. 

Was  it  your  idea  to  have  the  name  taken  out  of  the  back  plate? — 
Yes  ;  I  would  never  wear  it. 

You  would  never  wear  it? — No,  I  would  not  wear  it  with  the  name  in. 

Does  that  mean  you  had  never  worn  it? — No,  I  had  never  worn  it. 
I  have  never  worn  it  yet. 

Nobody  would  see  the  name? — Oh,  well,  I  did  not  like  Miss  Barrow's 
name  being  on  it — Miss  Barrow's  mother's  name  being  on  it. 

What  was  your  objection  to  wearing  it  with  a  name  on  the  back 
plate  which  no  one  could  see? — And  then  it  had  a  cracked  dial  as  well. 

Yes,  but  I  am  asking  you  about  the  name.  You  said  you  would 
not  wear  it  because  it  had  her  mother's  name  engraved  on  it? — I  did  not 
like  to  wear  it  with  a  name  on  it. 

I  want  you  to  explain  what  difference  it  made.  Nobody  could  see 
that  on  the  back  plate? — They  could  have  opened  it,  couldn't  they? 

People  do  not  take  your  watch  out  and  open  it  if  you  are  wearing 
it? — There  is  a  good  many  people  you  come  into  contact  with  that  would 
take  it  out  and  open  it. 

Why  should  that  affect  you? — It  did  not  belong  to  me ;  it  was  Miss 
Barrow's  mother's ;  it  was  not  my  mother's. 

Given  to  you? — Yes,  by  Miss  Barrow. 

According  to  you? — Yes,  that  is  quite  right. 

And,  even  after  it  was  altered,  you  didn't  wear  it? — No,  I  never 
wore  it. 

This  lady  had  not  been  buried  then ;  she  was  not  buried  until  the  next 
day  ? — No. 

You  went  to  the  jeweller's  the  day  after  her  death  and  the  day  before 
her  funeral? — Yes. 

To  have  this  name  taken  out? — Yes. 

261 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

You  told  us  a  little  while  ago,  very  definitely,  that  there  had  never 
been  any  fly-papers  of  any  kind  in  your  house  before  you  bought  these 
four? — I  made  a  mistake  there;  there  has  been  sticky  papers. 

Oh,  how  did  you  know  you  had  made  a  mistake? — I  called  it  to  mind 
after  I  went  awray. 

I  asked  you  a  good  many  questions  about  it,  and  you  were  very 
definite? — Well,  you  see,  I  get  mixed  up  between  one  thing  and  another. 

Was  your  attention  called  to  the  fact  that  your  husband  had  said  you 
had  sticky  ones  in  the  house? — I  beg  your  pardon. 

Was  your  attention  called  to  your  husband's  statement  that  you  had 
used  sticky  ones  in  the  house? — No. 

You  know  he  had  said  so? — When? 

Here,  in  Court? — That  I  do  not  remember. 

Don't  you? — No,  I  don't  remember  what  he  said. 

How  long  had  you  used  the  sticky  ones? — Oh,  not  very  often. 

Had  you  been  using  them  during  Miss  Barrow's  illness? — I  don't 
think  so. 

Had  you  been  using  them  during  that  hot  summer? — No;  I  don't 
think  we  used  them  in  that  house. 

By  "that  house"  you  mean  63  Tollington  Park? — Yes. 

What  papers  did  you  ask  for  when  you  went  to  the  chemist? — I  never 
asked  for  any  particular  papers ;  I  just  asked  for  fly-papers. 

Is  that  all? — I  asked  for  two. 

Tell  us  exactly  what  you  said,  as  near  as  you  can  remember? — Yea, 
I  asked  for  two  fly-papers — those  that  you  put  the  water  on — those  that 
you  wet. 

Had  you  never  seen  them  before? — Never. 

Had  you  never  seen  fly-papers  that  you  wet  before? — No,  no. 

Never  ? — No. 

Anywhere  ? — No. 

Do  you  know  whether  or  not  your  solicitor  has  been  to  this  chemist, 
Mr.  Meacher? — I  could  not  tell  you.  I  told  Mr.  Saint  about  it. 

Would  you  know  the  man  again,  if  you  saw  him,  who  served  you? — 
Very  likely. 

Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mrs.  Seddon,  that  you  do  not  know  whether  Mr. 
Saint  has  ever  been  to  this  chemist  or  not? — No. 

That  you  do  not  know  whether  he  had  tried  to  get  him  to  make  any 
statement  about  them? — No,  none  whatever. 

You  do  not  know? — No. 

He  had  never  reported  to  you? — No. 

He  has  been  acting  for  you  and  your  husband  throughout  these  pro- 
ceedings, has  he  not? — Yes. 

From  the  time  of  the  inquest? — Yes. 

Did  you  tell  your  solicitor  that  you  had  bought  some  precipitate 
there? — Yes. 

Did  you  tell  him  that  very  soon  after  your  husband's  arrest? — Yes. 

Was  that   about   the   time   that  your  daughter   went  to   Price's   to 
purchase  Mather's  fly-papers? — Yes,   I  believe  it  would  be.        I   will  not 
say  for  certain. 
262 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

That,  we  know,  is  6th  December,  two  days  after  your  husband's 
arrest? — Yes. 

You  knew  that? — Yes. 

You  knew  your  daughter  was  going  there  for  that  purpose? — Yes. 

You  know  your  solicitor's  signature,  I  suppose? — No,  I  do  not. 

Have  you  ever  seen  it? — No;  I  see  it,  I  think,  on  paper,  but  I  could 
not  recognise  it. 

Just  look  at  that.  (Document  handed.)  Look  at  the  fifth  line, 
and  tell  me  whether  you  recognise  that  signature? — No,  I  couldn't  tell 
you;  you  see,  I  have  seen  it  in  prison  on  the  paper. 

You  cannot  recognise  whether  that  is  his  signature  or  not? — Not 
that,  because  it  was  a  larger  signature. 

Is  Mr.  Meacher  here?  (Mr.  Meacher  stepped  forward.)  Is  that 
the  gentleman  who  served  you? — Yes.  (Mr.  Meacher  took  a  seat  in  the 
well  of  the  Court.) 

Did  you  sign  any  book? — No. 

Were  you  asked  to  sign  a  book  when  you  purchased  the  papers? — No. 

Has  your  daughter  ever  been  to  Meacher's? — I  could  not  tell  you — 
Yes,  I  will  tell  you. 

Yes? — As  regards  the  baby's  food. 

Did  you  change  any  notes  after  the  1st  September  for  Miss  Barrow  ? — 
I  don't  think,  so. 

Is  your  memory  clear  about  it? — Well,  if  I  did  it  was  what  I  had  on 
hand ;  I  will  not  say  for  certain. 

One  you  had  on  hand? — Yes. 

Do  you  mean  one  she  had  left  with  you? — One  I  changed  for  her, 
and  it  was  my  own  money,  but  I  don't  think  it  waa  after  Miss  Barrow's 
death. 

I  am  asking  you  after  the  time  she  was  ill,  from  1st  September? — 
No,  I  don't  remember. 

What  do  you  mean  by  saying,  "  One  you  had  on  hand  "? — You  see 
I  had  some  money  of  my  own,  and  out  of  this  I  cashed  Miss  Barrow's  note. 

Sometimes  you  cashed  notes  for  her  which  you  did  not  take  to  shops? 
— No,  only  this  one. 

Which  one? — This  last  one  I  had. 

When  was  it? — I  couldn't  tell  you  the  date. 

Did  you  pay  it  into  your  bank? — I  didn't  pay  her  £5  note  into  the 
bank. 

Just  look  at  your  book  for  a  minute  and  tell  me.  (Poet  Office 
Savings  Bank  book  handed.)? — Yes,  I  know  the  book. 

Do  you  see  the  entry? — Yes. 

That  is  18th  September,  is  it  not? — Yes. 

"  £5  "?— Yes,  I  will  account  for  that. 

What  was  it  ? — I  think  Greigs  cashed  that  £5  note ;  that  was  the  last 
note  that  I  cashed  for  Miss  Barrow. 

That  was  a  note  of  Miss  Barrow's? — Yes. 

Apparently,  so  far  as  we  have  got,  you  paid  £5  in  gold  on  18th 
September  into  your  Post  Office  Savings  Bank  account? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

That  £5  in  gold  was  money  which  you  had  got  for  a  £5  note? — Of 
Miss  Barrow's. 

263 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

And  which,  if  Miss  Barrow  had  lived,  would  have  been  paid  to  her; 
is  that  what  you  mean? — No,  that  is  not  correct. 

When  did  you  get  the  £5  note  from  Miss  Barrow? — I  could  not  tell 
you  the  date,  but  I  wanted  to  pay  Greigs  their  grocery  bill.  Miss  Barrow 
had  already  had  the  note  cashed. 

When  had  she  had  the  note  cashed? — You  see  this  £5  was  my  own  £5. 

It  is  Miss  Barrow's  note  that  I  want  to  know  about? — On  this  day 
that  I  went  to  Greigs. 

18th  September  is  the  day  you  paid  it  in? — No,  I  had  the  money  then. 

How  long  had  you  the  money  before  you  paid  it  in? — It  was  my  own 
money  which  I  had  saved. 

How  long  had  you  it  before  you  paid  it  in? — Oh,  I  had  this  money 
on  and  off — money  I  had  saved. 

When  had  you  got  the  £5  note  from  Miss  Barrow? — I  couldn't  tell  you. 

I  must  ask  you  to  look  at  the  book  for  a  minute.  I  see  the  book 
starts  from  8th  April,  1911,  with  an  entry  of  "  £1  10s.,"  and  then  the 
total  amount  paid  in  previous  to  this  entry  is  14s.  in  three  sums  of  10s. 
in  August,  2s.  in  August,  2s.  in  August,  and  then  comes  this  entry  of  £5 
on  18th  September? — Yes,  well,  you  see  I  had  already  paid  Miss  Barrow 
her  £5. 

You  see  that  is  right?  (Book  handed.)? — Yes,  I  cannot  quite  catch 
what  you  mean. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Never  mind  what  he  means.  Try  and 
answer  the  question.  "  I  had  already  paid  her  her  £5."  Now,  he  aska 
you  to  look  at  the  book.  Now,  look  at  the  book? — Yes,  that  is  the  £5 
I  had  put  in. 

Look  at  the  book  and  wait  for  the  question.  You  will  see  swme 
entries  there.  Look  at  the  entries  before  the  £5? — Yes,  there  is  2s.,  2«.. 
10s.,  and  £1  10s. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  very  anxious  that  you  should  under- 
stand what  I  mean? — I  will  try  and  understand  as  far  as  I  can. 

So  that  you  may  give  your  explanation  of  it.  On  this  date,  18th 
September,  you  were  paying  in  £5? — Yes. 

You  had  never  paid  in  any  such  sum  before? — No,  that  is  quite  right. 

The  book  which  is  there  before  you  shows  entries  of  £2  4s.  altogether? 
—Yes. 

During  the  whole  time  from  April? — Yes. 

This  appears  to  be  another  account,  an  earlier  one.  I  thought  it  waa 
the  same  carried  on,  but  it  appears  to  be  another  one;  it  appears  to  be 
an  account  for  1910.  (Post  Office  Savings  Bank  book  handed)? — Yes. 

There  is  no  such  sum  as  £5  in  any  of  those  payments  in? — No. 

There  are  some  payments  of  a  few  shillings? — Yes. 

Ten  shillings,  I  think,  is  the  most  I  have  seen? — Yes. 

I  want  you  to  explain  to  us  how  you  came  to  pay  that  £5  in  on  18th 
September? — You  see,  I  was  going  away  on  my  holiday  for  one  week,  and 
when  I  came  back  I  wanted  to  buy  a  fur  and  fur  hat  and  muff  to  match, 
and  this  was  my  money  that  I  had  already  saved  to  do  it  with.  I  didn't 
buy  it  before  I  went  away;  I  put  it  in  the  bank. 

Now,  will  you  tell  us  what  that  had  to  do  with  that  £5  note  of  Miss 
264 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

Barrow's — this  one  that  you  know  of? — The  last  note  I  changed  for  Misa 
Barrow  was  in  October,  as  far  as  I  remember. 

You  must  be  mistaken.  She  died  in  September? — October.  We  have 
got  mixed  up  a  bit  now.  I  cannot  follow  you  back  to  where  I  was  before. 

Just  follow.     Miss  Barrow  died  on  14th  September? — Yea. 

What  I  want  to  know  is  about  this  note  that  you  had  from  Miss 
Barrow  before  her  death? — Yes. 

I  want  you  to  tell  us  what  that  was — when  did  you  get  it? — Well, 
you  see,  if  I  have  it,  and  I  paid  Miss  Barrow  with  the  money,  that  is  still 
my  money  that  I  had;  I  paid  it  out  of  my  money,  and  I  had  still  got  my  £5. 

Then  do  you  mean  you  did  change  a  £5  note  for  Miss  Barow  during 
the  time  that  she  was  ill? — Not  while  she  was  ill,  no. 

When  had  you  got  it  from  her? — From  Mae  time  previous. 

Do  you  know  how  long  previous? — No,  I  don't  know. 

Did  you  ever  hold  the  notes  over  that  you  got  from  Miss  Barrow? — 
One — this  last  one — I  kept  it  back  and  paid  Miss  Barrow  the  money. 

Let  me  see  if  I  understand  what  you  mean.  She  wanted  to  change  a 
£5  note? — Yes. 

And  you  had  £5  of  your  own? — That  is  right. 

And  you  gave  her  that  £5  for  the  £5  note? — Yes. 

And  then  it  is  your  £5  note? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

And  then,  when  you  were  going  to  pay  in,  you  changed  the  £5  note 
into  five  sovereigns? — Not  at  the  Post  Office. 

Did  you  pay  in  the  note  or  the  gold? — The  gold. 

Then  you  had  changed  the  £5  note  which  you  had  got  into  gold  before 
you  paid  it  in? — I  had  been  and  paid  Greigs  their  grocery  bill,  you  see. 

With  that  £5  note? — Yes. 

Then  you  made  up  the  balance,  I  suppose,  of  what  you  had  spent,  and 
paid  in  the  five  sovereigns? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

Is  that  right? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — There  is  an  observation  I  want  to  make  to 
your  lordship,  and  that  is  that  that  note  is  not  one  of  the  thirty-three. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  assumed  that  all  the  way  through,  because 
otherwise  you  would  have  told  us  so,  I  am  sure. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — My  learned  friend  has  asked 
you  about  changing  some  notes  for  Miss  Barrow.  Do  you  know  in  the 
least  what  Miss  Barrow  did  with  the  money  you  gave  her  in  change  for 
those  notes? — No,  I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Or  did  you  ever  see  Miss  Barrow  take  the  note  which  you  changed 
for  her  from  any  particular  place? — No. 

Then  as  regards  this  £216  which  she  brought  back  in  gold  from 
the  savings  bank,  you  were  with  her? — Yes,  I  was  with  her. 

You  went  to  the  bank  with  her? — Yes. 

And  came  back  with  her? — Yes. 

And,  as  you  have  told  us,  your  husband  objected  to  her  having  so 
much  money  in  the  house? — Yes. 

What  did  she  say? — My  husband  objected,  and  she  was  disagreeable 
over  it;  she  fell  out  with  him  over  it;  she  did  not  talk  to  him  for  a  week. 
She  said  "  She  knew  what  to  do  with  it "  ;  these  were  her  words. 

When  you  were  asked  about  the  fly-papers  you  said  that  you  had 

265 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

never  bought  any  fly-papers  until  you  bought  them  on  4th  September. 
How  did  you  come  to  buy  the  fly-papers  that  had  to  be  -wetted  on  4th 
September? — Because  Miss  Barrow  asked  me;  she  said,  "Don't  get  the 
sticky  ones;  they  are  too  dirty." 

There  are  reels  of  sticky  paper? — Yes,  the  other  ones. 

With  things  that  hang?— Yes. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  have  you  had  any  of  these  fly-papers  that  catch 
them  alive  at  Tollington  Park? — Not  to  my  knowledge,  I  have  not. 

My  learned  friend  asked  you  whether  you  had  ever  sent  Maggie  to  buy 
any  fly-papers? — Never. 

You  did  know  that  Maggie  went  to  a  shop  on  6th  December  to  try 
and  buy  some,  and  that  she  did  not  get  some;  that  was  through  Mr. 
Saint? — That  was  Mr.  Saint's  instructions. 

It  is  suggested  that  Maggie  had  bought  fly-papers  from  Thorley  on 
26th  August.  When  did  you  first  know  that? — Not  until  I  heard  it  in 
Court. 

You  heard  it  in  Court  before  the  magistrate? — Yes,  before  the 
magistrate. 

Has  Maggie  ever  brought  any  fly-papers  to  the  house? — Never. 

When  I  say  "  fly-papers  "  I  mean  Mather's  fly-papers  ? — Never. 

I  just  want  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions  about  this  night  that 
Miss  Barrow  died.  If  I  understood  your  answer  to  the  learned  Attorney- 
General  aright,  you  say  that  when  you  went  upstairs  and  found  her  sitting 
on  the  floor  in  great  pain,  and  the  little  boy  trying  to  hold  her  up,  your 
husband  went  out  of  the  room  for  a  few  minutes  ? — I  asked  him  to  go  outside 
the  room. 

Was  that  because  you  found  that  Miss  Barrow  wanted  to  use  the 
c  ommode  ? — Yes . 

For  decency's  sake,  he  was  outside  the  door  while  you  helped  her  to 
use  the  commode? — Yes. 

You  sat  down  in  the  chair  at  the  foot  of  the  bed? — Yes. 

Have  you  any  idea  how  long  it  was,  when  you  sat  down  in  the  chair  at 
the  foot  of  the  bed,  before  the  final  end  came? — I  never  took  notice. 

I  think  you  said  you  were  "  sleeping  tired  "? — Yes. 

That  ia  a  north  country  expression,  which  means  that  you  were  dog- 
tired? — Yes. 

You  were  "sleeping  tired,    and  you  dozed  and  woke  up? — Yes. 

You  cannot  give  us  any  idea  of  the  exact  time? — No,  I  cannot. 

Did  you  notice  any  difference  between  the  ordinary  snoring  you  hear 
and  any  sound  which  took  place  immediately  before  your  husband  called 
out  to  you? — No,  as  I  said  before,  it  seemed  a  snoring  that  came  from 
her  throat. 

Did  she  complain  of  asthma? — Before  she  took  to  bed? 

Yes?— Yes. 

Did  she  ever  have  bronchitis  while  she  was  in  your  house? — She  wa* 
troubled  on  and  off. 

The  bronchial  tubes  gave  her  trouble — there  was  trouble  with  her 
chest? — She  couldn't  get  her  breath. 

Will  you  tell  me  if  it  was  an  ordinary  habit  of  hers  to  snore? — I  do 
not  know. 
266 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

You  would  not  be  able  to  hear  her  from  your  room? — No. 

My  learned  friend  suggests  that  there  was  no  reason  why  your  husband 
should  not  have  gone  downstairs  that  last  night? — He  did  not  like  to  leave 
me  alone. 

You  were  up  there  all  alone  with  Miss  Barrow,  and  if  you  had  gone 
down,  instead  of  staying  in  the  room,  what  would  you  expect? — I  do  not 
know. 

Do  you  think  you  would  have  got  a  nice  rest? — No,  I  could  not  sleep 
when  I  knew  my  husband  was  up. 

Supposing  both  of  you  had  gone  away,  would  you  have  been  left  in 
peace? — No,  Miss  Barrow  might  have  called  out  again. 

You  had  been  up  several  times  before  twelve? — Yes. 

And  you  went  up  four  times  after  twelve  o'clock? — Yes. 

In  what  sort  of  a  glass  was  it  that  you  gave  her  the  Valentine's 
beef  juice? — In  a  cup. 

Do  you  remember  how  much  beef  juice  you  gave  her? — I  gave  her 
two  or  three  teaspoonfuls. 

How  much  water  did  you  put  to  it? — Nearly  full. 

That  would  be  a  white  cup,  would  it  not,  or  what? — Yes,  an  ordinary 
china  cup. 

What  colour  would  two  or  three  teaspoonfuls  added  to  a  cup  of  water 
be;  would  it  be  pale  or  dark  when  it  was  mixed  up? — It  was  a  browny 
colour. 

Who  ordered  the  Valentine's  beef  juice  for  her? — Dr.  Sworn. 

Do  you  remember  how  many  bottles  you  bought  of  it? — Two. 

At  about  2s.  10d.,  or  something  like  that? — 2s.  lOd.  a  bottle. 

Now,  I  will  go  to  another  point.  Whereabouts  in  the  room  did  this 
big  trunk  stand? — Under  the  window. 

The  jury  have  seen  that.  It  is  right  under  the  window.  You  do  not 
know  which  is  the  key  of  the  trunk? — No,  I  could  not  tell  you. 

There  are  two  here  which,  to  my  unobservant  eye,  are  like  duplicates. 
Anyhow,  I  should  like  the  jury  to  see  these  keys.  I  will  tie  this  piece  of 
red  ribbon  on  to  the  key  which  I  am  told  is  the  trunk  key.  (Bunch  of 
keys  handed  to  the  jury.)  This  trunk  was  underneath  the  window  in  the 
bedroom  ? — Yes . 

Have  you  any  knowledge  whatever  as  to  what  Miss  Barrow  used  to  do 
when  she  went  out? — No,  I  could  not  tell  you. 

Now,  about  this  music  hall.  How  came  you  to  go  to  the  music  hall 
on  the  Thursday  night? — Well,  when  my  eldest  son  came  home  from  work 
he  said  he  had  booked  four  seats  at  the  Empire.  I  said  I  felt  too  tired, 
and  I  would  rather  stay  at  home,  but,  anyway,  my  husband  thought  it  would 
do  me  good,  and  he  advised  me  to  go,  and  I  went. 

All  I  want  to  get  is  that  the  seats  had  been  taken.  Mrs.  Longley  was 
staying  with  you? — Yes. 

Who  -went — you,  Mrs.  Longley,  your  son,  and ? — And  a  girl  friend 

that  came  in. 

The  seats  had  been  got  without  your  being  consulted? — Yes. 

You  did  not  want  to  go,  but  you  did  go? — Yes. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  think  that  is  all  I  have  to  ask. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — The  jury  have  handed  me  this  paper  contain- 

267 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

ing  some  questions.  The  questions  have  not  been  put,  so  will  you 
attend.  "  The  jury  would  like  Mrs.  Seddon's  evidence  read  over  as  to 
when  she  went  to  Meacher's  the  chemist,  for  fly-papers,  and  how  much 
money  was  expended."  Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  read  my  note,  and  it 
will  be  checked  by  others.  The  first  reference  to  it  is  this.  Yesterday 
afternoon  the  witness  said  "  She "  (that  is  Miss  Barrow)  "  complained 
of  the  flies  in  her  bedroom,  we  had  to  fan  her  to  keep  the  flies  from  her. 
She  asked  me  to  get  fly-papers — the  wet  ones,  not  the  sticky  ones.  That 
was  on  the  Monday  or  the  Tuesday,  the  4th  or  the  5th."  (To  witness) 
If  I  am  not  putting  it  right,  just  tell  me? — That  is  right. 

"  I  got  them  at  Mr.  Meacher's,  the  chemist,  just  round  the  corner 
close  to  us.  An  old  gentleman  served  me.  I  may  have  bought  the 
baby's  food  at  the  same  time,  Horlick's  malted  milk."  I  understand  it 
was  a  bottle.  "  I  believe  I  bought  for  Miss  Barrow  white  precipitate 
powder,  also  to  wash  her  head.  Once  I  saw  her  clean  her  teeth  with 
it.  I  signed  no  book  when  I  bought  the  fly-papers.  I  never  had  a 
packet  of  them.  I  asked  for  two  papers.  I  bought  four  for  3d.  I 
showed  them  to  Miss  Barrow,  and  she  said  they  were  the  sort  she  wanted. 
I  put  them  on  plates  first"? — No,  that  is  wrong.  I  put  them  on  one 
plate  first  to  moisten  them. 

I  see  you  say  that  now  I  look  at  it.  "I  put  them  on  a  plate  first 
to  damp  them  all  over"? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

"And  then  I  put  them  in  four  saucers"? — Yes. 
'  Two  on  the  mantelpiece  and  two  on  the  chest  of  drawers.  I  put 
water  in  the  saucers."  That  is  all  there  is  about  that.  I  don't  know 
that  I  have  got  anything  else  until  I  come  to  (to-day).  "  At  the  chemist's  I 
asked  for  two  fly-papers — those  that  you  wet.  I  have  never  seen  those 
before.  I  told  Mr.  Saint  about  it.  I  don't  know  if  he  had  been  to  the 
chemist's  about  them,"  and  so  on. 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — There  is  something  left  out,  my  lord. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — What  is  it? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — There  is  a  part  where  Mrs.  Seddon  said 
she  remembered  it  because  she  took  four  fly-papers. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  what  I  have  already  read. 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — And  it  was  brought  back  to  her  memory 
because  she  got  them  cheaper  that  way. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  have  the  shorthand  note.  I  know  the 
exact  words  are  not  in  your  lordship's  note,  although  the  substance  is. 
"Mr.  Meacher,  or  whatever  his  name  is,  said,  'Why  not  have  four? 
You  can  have  four  for  3d.'  I  said,  'Very  well,  then,  I  might  as  well 
have  the  four.'  ' 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — That  is  at  length;  my  note  in  the  abbreviated 
form  is,  "I  asked  for  two  papers,  and  I  bought  four  for  3d." 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — At  the  same  time,  my  lord,  she  bought 
the  white  precipitate  and  Horlick's  malted  milk,  so  she  must  have  paid 
more  than  3d. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — What  did  you  pay  for  the  precipitate? — Id. 

The  next  thing  the  jury  want  to  know  is  thjs — "  To  ask  Mrs.  Seddon 
did  her  husband  allow  her  any  money  weekly?  " — Well,   you  see,   when- 
268 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  A.  Seddon 

sver  I  wanted  anything  my  husband  would  give  it  me;  if  I  wanted  to  buy 
anything,  he  would  always  give  me  money  to  buy  it. 

Then  the  rest,  "  If  not,"  does  not  matter,  because  you  have  got 
what  you  want. 

"If  I  wanted  money,  my  husband  would  give  me  whatever  I 
wanted  "?— Yes. 

Let  me  ask  you  one  question  so  as  to  make  it  quite  clear.  There 
was  what  we  call  the  last  £5  note  that  you  had  from  Miss  Barrow? — 
Yes. 

For  that  note  I  understand  you  gave  her  money? — Yes,  that  is  right. 

That  money,  I  understand  you  to  say,  was  your  own  savings? — My 
own  money. 

Listen.  Say  yes  or  no.  Having  done  that  you  then  had  the  £6- 
note  still  in  your  possession? — Yes. 

You  dealt  with  that  in  this  way;  you  took  it  to  your  own  grocer  to 
pay  your  little  grocery  bill? — Yes. 

And  got  change  for  the  £5  note? — Yes. 

And  then  wishing,  as  you  say,  to  pay  £5  into  your  Post  Office 
Savings  Bank,  with  the  money  you  had  you  made  up  the  £5,  and  so  paid 
£5  into  the  bank,  is  that  right? — Yes. 

JOHN  ARTHUR  FRANCIS,  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  a 
member  of  the  Royal  College  of  Surgeons,  and  live  at  108  Fortress  Road, 
Tufnell  Park.  From  October,  1904,  to  February,  1910,  I  attended  the 
late  Miss  Barrow  on  and  off.  She  was  then  living  with  the  Grants  at 
52  Lady  Somerset  Road.  On  some  occasions  when  I  attended  her  she 
had  gastritis,  which  was  brought  on  by  alcohol  really.  I  have  no  doubt 
about  it  at  all.  I  would  say  that  she  suffered  from  gastritis,  brought 
on  by  alcohol,  every  three  months  or  so,  but  I  could  not  give  the  dates; 
there  were  two  years  that  I  did  not  see  her  at  all. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  say  that  every  three  months  or  so  you 
saw  her  for  alcoholism? — Not  always  alcoholism;  she  had  gastritis,  but 
not  always.  Sometimes  she  had  bronchitis,  but  it  was  generally  for 
gastritis  that  I  saw  her. 

Examination  continued — I  have  here  extracts  from  my  ledger  show- 
ing the  dates  upon  which  I  attended  Miss  Barrow.  I  find  that  from  19th 
October,  1904,  to  20th  September,  1905,  is  the  time  that  I  attended 
her  at  52  Somerset  Road.  Mr.  Grant  died  on  20th  October,  1906.  I 
attended  Miss  Barrow  at  38  Woodsome  Road  on  various  occasions  in  1909. 
Towards  the  end  of  that  year  and  the  beginning  of  1910  she  was  suffer- 
ing from  general  debility.  The  last  time  I  attended  her  for  gastric  trouble 
would  be  in  March,  1909.  I  understood  she  was  a  quarrelsome  sort  of 
woman,  but  I  had  not  seen  it  myself.  One  day  she  would  not  come 
down  to  see  me,  and  Mrs.  Grant  had  to  fetch  her  down.  She  behaved 
in  a  very  sulky  and  queer  sort  of  manner. 

She  was  a  businesslike  woman,  so  far  as  you  could  judge,  was  she 
not? — I  think  she  had  all  her  wits  about  her.  (It  was  arranged  that  this 
witness  should  come  again  to-morrow  morning  for  cross-examination 
and  bring  his  books  with  him.) 

269 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 


Ernest  B.  Poole 


ERNEST  BURTON  POOLH,  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  am  a 
clerk  with  the  firm  of  Frere,  Cholmeley  &  Co.,  solicitors,  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields.  The  correspondence  between  Miss  Barrow  and  my  firm  in 
reference  to  the  compensation  charges  of  the  "  Buck's  Head "  passed 
through  my  hands.  I  produce  four  letters  to  my  firm  from  Miss  Barrow 
and  four  from  my  firm  to  her  which  passed  in  1910. 

Do  you  find  that  a  cheque  for  £9  8s.  4d.  was  paid  for  ground  rent 
at  the  "  Buck's  Head"  through  a  cheque  of  Mr.  Seddon's  in  October? — I 
cannot  say  whose  cheque  it  was.  Miss  Barrow  always  paid  by  money 
order,  but  I  was  asked  to  verify  a  cheque,  and  I  looked  it  up.  It  was 
so  unusual  that  I  went  to  the  bank  to  see  that  it  was  a  cheque,  and  I 
found  that  it  was.  It  was  drawn  on  the  London  and  Provincial  Bank, 
Finsbury  Park  branch.  I  cannot  say  more  than  that. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  was  the  first  time 
we  were  paid  by  cheque,  and  from  that  time  onwards  we  were  always 
paid  by  cheque.  That  was  the  last  rent  that  we  received  from  Miss 
Barrow.  After  that,  from  Lady  Day,  Mr.  Seddon  became  the  lessee. 
We  had  notice  of  the  assignment. 

MARY  CHATER,  recalled,  further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL 
HALL — I  asked  you  about  a  cup  of  tea  being  made  for  Miss  Barrow.  I 
want  to  ask  you  again  who  made  the  cup  of  tea  in  the  morning  for  Miss 
Barrow? — Not  me. 

Did  you  not  take  a  cup  of  tea  up  the  stairs  and  give  it  to  Margaret, 
and  Margaret  took  it  into  Miss  Barrow's  room? — No. 

Do  you  know  that  Margaret  took  a  cup  of  tea  into  Miss  Barrow'a 
room  each  morning? — No. 

I  put  it  to  you  that  every  morning  you  used  to  make  a  cup  of  tea 
downstairs  and  give  it  to  Miss  Margaret,  who  gave  it  to  Miss  Barrow? — 
No,  that  is  not  so. 

MARGARET  SEDDON,  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  waa  six- 
teen years  of  age  on  17th  January  last.  I  remember  Miss  Barrow  and 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook  coming  to  live  at  our  house.  There  was  some 
quarrel,  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hook  left. 

Did  you  ever  take  a  cup  of  tea  to  Miss  Barrow  in  the  morning? — 
Yes. 

How  often  did  you  take  it? — Well,  every  morning.  The  servant, 
Mary,  used  to  bring  it  up  to  my  bedroom  at  seven  in  the  morning,  and 
I  used  to  take  it  from  her  up  to  Miss  Barrow's  room.  I  remember  my 
mother  sending  me  on  6th  December,  after  my  father  had  been  arrested, 
to  buy  some  fly-papers.  I  went  with  two  other  young  ladies.  I  do  not 
know  Mr.  Thorley,  but  I  know  his  daughter,  and  I  have  been  to  Mr. 
Thorley's  shop  to  see  her  at  the  side  door.  I  remember  on  one  occasion 
when  I  went  to  the  side  door  Mr.  Thorley  opened  the  door,  but  I  did 
not  have  any  conversation  with  him.  He  opened  the  door  twice  to 
me  when  I  went  to  see  his  daughter.  I  have  never  been  to  his  shop 
to  buy  fly-papers.  (Shown  exhibit  126.)  I  have  never  bought  a  fly- 
paper like  that. 

We  know  that  you  did  go  to  buy  some  fly-papers  with  the  other 
270 


Evidence  for  Defence. 

Margaret  Seddon 

young  ladies,  but  they  did  not  sell  them  to  you? — No,  I  have  never 
bought  any  fly-papers  either  at  Mr.  Thorley's  or  anywhere  else  at  any 
time. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — The  two  other  girls  who  went  with  me  were 
two  of  Mr.  Saint's  daughters. 

Cross-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — That  was  at  Mr.  Price's 
shop? — That  was  Mr.  Price's  shop. 

Did  you  sometimes  go  out  and  take  the  baby  in  a  perambulator  t — 
Yes. 

During  the  warm  weather  of  July,  August,  and  September? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  Crouch  Hill? — I  do. 

Did  you  sometimes  go  up  that  way  with  the  perambulator? — No. 

Do  you  remember  buying  anything  at  all  on  the  26th  August? — No. 

Do  you  remember  a  shop  called  Wilson's? — Yes. 

Do  you  know  you  bought  something  there  on  the  26th  August? — No. 

Do  you  say  you  did  not? — No. 

Are  you  quite  sure? — Quite  sure. 

Have  you  ever  been  into  the  shop? — I  have  been. 

Did  you  go  in  at  all  last  year? — Yes. 

Did  you  go  in  during  the  summer? — Yes. 

Did  you  go  in  in  August? — I  could  not  say. 

Do  you  remember  buying  a  pair  of  shoes  and  a  little  writing  case 
there? — I  remember  buying  them. 

But  you  do  not  remember  the  date? — No. 

We  have  got  the  date,  if  you  can  remember  it.  It  is  the  26th  August. 
You  do  not  remember  whether  it  was  that  date  or  any  other? — No,  I  could 
not  remember. 

About  how  far  is  Wilson's  shop  from  Thorley's? — Well,  I  should 
eay  about  five  minutes'  walk. 

Have  you  ever  seen  any  fly-papers  like  that  at  all? — Do  you  mean  at 
our  place? 

Ever,  anywhere? — Yes. 

Where? — In  Miss  Barrow's  room. 

When? — During  her  illness  in  September. 

How  often  were  you  there? — Well,  every  day. 

You  were  in  the  room  every  day? — Yes. 

Had  you  ever  seen  any  before? — No. 

Have  you  ever  heard  of  sticky  fly-papers? — Yes. 

You  know  what  they  are? — Yes,  I  do. 

Have  you  ever  seen  a  packet  like  that  (handing  an  envelope)  ? — No. 

Never? — No. 

Have  you  ever  been  into  Thorley's  shop  at  all? — No. 

You  were  within  a  very  few  minutes'  walk  from  there  on  this  day? — 
I  couldn't  say  what  day  it  was. 

But  I  am  trying  to  help  you.  We  have  got  the  evidence  already  that 
you  were  at  Wilson's? — Yes,  but  I  couldn't  say  I  was,  because  I  don't 
remember. 

On  the  day  that  you  were  at  Wilson's  you  were  only  a  few  minutes' 
walk  from  Thorley's  shop? — Yes. 

271 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Margaret  Seddon 

Now,  I  must  ask  you,  did  you  tell  Mr.  Thorley  that  you  wanted  four 
packets  of  fly-papers?— No,  sir,  I  have  never  been  in  the  shop. 

Did  he  ask  you  what  kind,  and  did  you  say  that  you  did  not  want  the 
sticky  ones? — I  have  not  been  in  the  shop. 

Never  been  in  there  at  all? — No. 

I  will  put  to  you  the  exact  words.  Did  he  say  to  you,  "  Do  you  want 
the  sticky  ones?"  and  did  you  say,  "No,  the  arsenic  ones"? — I  have 
never  been  in  conversation  with  him  about  fly-papers  at  all. 

I  understand  you  have  never  been  into  the  shop? — Never. 

You  did  know  him,  and  he  knew  you  by  sight  apparently? — Well,  I 
couldn't  recognise  him  again ;  I  only  knew  him  through  calling  at  the 
side  door  for  his  daughter. 

You  used  to  see  his  daughter  occasionally,  I  suppose? — Certainly, 
yes. 

Did  he  tell  you  that  he  couldn't  let  you  have  four  packets  because  he 
had  not  got  them  in  the  shop,  or  anything  of  that  kind? — No,  I  never  saw 
him  about  fly-papers. 

I  am  putting  to  you  what  he  says.  You  say  you  had  no  conversation 
with  him  at  all? — No,  I  had  not. 

Were  you  asked  by  Chief  Inspector  Ward  at  the  Police  Court  whether 
you  had  ever  been  to  purchase  fly-papers? — Yes,  sir. 

Did  he  ask  you  whether  you  had  ever  been  to  the  chemist's  shop  at 
the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud  Green  Road  to  purchase  Mather's 
fly-papers  ? — Yes. 

And  did  you  say  "  No  "? — I  said  I  had  not  been  to  Thorley's. 

That  is  not  the  question  I  am  putting  to  you.  The  corner  of 
Tollington  Park  and  Stroud  Green  Road  is  Price's  shop,  isn't  it? — I  see; 
yes,  that  is  right. 

Did  you  say  to  the  police  officer  that  you  had  never  been  to  the 
chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud  Green  Road 
to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers? — No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Did  he  ask  you  the  question? — He  did. 

What  did  you  say? — I  told  him  I  had  been  to  try  and  get  them,  but 
Price  would  not  give  them  to  me  when  I  mentioned  my  name  owing  to 
the  trouble  we  had  already  got. 

Just  let  me  put  the  question  to  you.  Is  that  your  signature  on  each 
of  the  pages  (handing  depositions)? — Yes. 

Look  on  the  first  page.  Do  you  see  the  question  there,  "  Have  you 
ever  been  to  the  chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud 
Green  Road  to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers,"  and  the  answer,  "  No." 
Do  you  see  that? — Yes. 

Is  your  signature  immediately  underneath  that? — Yes,  that  is  my 
signature. 

Do  you  remember  that  paper  being  read  over  to  you? — Yes,  I  do. 

And  your  being  asked  whether  it  was  correct? — Yes. 

And  if  it  was  correct  you  signed  it? — Yes. 

And  did  you  sign  it? — I  did. 

Did  you  think  it  was  correct?     I  am  sorry  to  press  you,  but  I  must 
ask  you? — Well,  I  did,  because  you  see  1  did  not  purchase  them  because 
he  wouldn't  let  me  have  them.     That  is  the  way  I  am  looking  at  it. 
272 


Evidence  for  Defence. 


Margaret  Seddon 


This  is  the  question,  "  Have  you  ever  been  to  the  chemist's  shop  at 
the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud  Green  Road  to  purchase  Mather's 
fly-papers,"  and  the  answer  is,  "  No."  Let  me  put  to  you,  did  he  go  on 
and  put  this  further  question  to  you,"  Did  you,  on  the  6th  December, 
1911,  go  to  this  shop  to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers,"  and  you  said, 
"Yes"?— Yea,  that  is  right. 

I  will  read  the  whole  answer.  "  Yes.  I  went  there,  but  I  did  not 
get  any ;  the  chemist  was  going  to  give  them  to  me  until  I  mentioned  my 
name"? — That  is  right. 

Were  you  asked  who  sent  you  for  them? — Yes. 

And  you  said  you  could  not  say  whether  it  was  your  mother  or  Mr. 
Saint? — That  is  right. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — "  Have  you  ever  been  to  the  chemist's 
shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud  Green  Road  to  purchase 
Mather's  fly-papers,"  answer  "  No."  That  is  a  simple  enough  question. 
Why  did  you  say  no? — Because  I  did  not  get  them. 

That  was  not  the  question.  "  Have  you  ever  been  there,"  that  is 
the  question? — That  was  put  as  a  second  question. 

Do  not  get  confused.  This  is  the  question — the  learned  counsel  is 
pressing  you  quite  fairly — this  is  the  question  in  writing,  "  Have  you 
ever  been  to  the  chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and 
Stroud  Green  Road  to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers,"  answer,  "  No." 
Why  did  you  say  you  had  never  been  there  ? — That  was  a  misunderstanding. 

By  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  knew  why  you  were  being  asked  these 
questions.  I  am  sorry  to  ask  you,  but  I  cannot  help  it.  You  knew  very 
well  that  your  father  and  mother  were  arrested  at  the  time  you  were  asked 
these  questions? — Yes. 

And  that  these  questions  had  to  do  with  the  case  against  them? — Yes, 
I  did  know  that. 

And  until  the  inspector  put  this  question  to  you  about  the  6th 
December,  you  did  not  know  that  they  had  traced  you  to  Price's  shop, 
did  you?— No,  I  didn't  know. 

When  he  put  this  question  to  you  about  the  6th  December  then  it 
was  clear  to  you  that  the  police  knew  you  had  been  to  Price's  shop, 
wasn't  it? — I  cannot  say. 

But  it  looked  like  it,  didn't  it,  because  they  put  the  date.  You 
knew  you  had  been  there  on  that  day,  didn't  you? — Yes,  I  knew  I  had 
been  there. 

Of  course,  you  knew  you  had  gone  with  the  two  Misses  Saint,  who 
were  the  sisters  of  the  solicitor  who  was  acting  for  your  father  and 
mother.  You  knew  that? — Yes. 

And  you  knew  that  you  had  gone  to  Price's  to  purchase  these 
papers  in  connection  with  the  case  against  your  father? — I  did  not  know 
what  I  had  gone  there  for. 

Didn't  you? — No. 

Who  sent  you? — Mr.    Saint  sent  me. 

What  did  he  tell  you  to  do? — He  simply  told  me  to  go  in  and  ask 
for  them. 

To  go  in  and  ask  for  what? — A  packet  of  Mather's  fly-papers. 

And  you  did? — Yes. 
s  273 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Margaret  Seddon 


You  were  asked  to  sign  the  book,  weren't  you? — Yes. 

Then  you  gave  your  name? — Yes. 

And  then,  when  you  gave  your  name,  he  would  not  serve  you? — 
No,  sir. 

That  is  right,  isn't  it? — Yes,  sir. 

You  remember  all  that  perfectly  well  when  you  were  at  the  Police 
Court,  didn't  you? — I  did,  yes. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — "  Have  you  ever  been  to  the 
chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud  Green  Road 
to  purchase  Mather's  fh'-papers  "  ;  they  do  not  say  Price's.  They  only 
say,  "  The  chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud 
Green  Road."  Where  did  Inspector  Ward  see  you? — I  was  in  the  Court 
waiting  to  get  in. 

In  the  Court  where  your  father  and  mother  were  going  to  be  taken 
to? — The  North  London  Police  Court. 

Was  it  the  day  that  the  magistrate  had  a  hearing? — Yes. 

Where  did  Inspector  Ward  take  you  to? — Well,  it  was  round  to  the 
gaoler's  room. 

Was  anybody  else  in  the  room? — No — Inspector  Cooper. 

Inspector  Ward  and  Inspector  Cooper  took  you  into  this  room  and 
asked  questions,  and  took  them  down  in  writing,  and  you  signed  it? — 
Yes. 

Mrs.  ALICE  RTJTT,  examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  live  at  1  Blen- 
heim Road,  Holloway.  My  husband  is  a  labourer.  I  was  employed  by 
Mrs.  Seddon  to  help  her  in  the  house  work  and  do  some  washing  about 
two  days  a  week  for  some  years.  While  Miss  Barrow  was  ill  in  September 
I  went  most  days.  I  usually  went  about  9.30  or  10  in  the  morning,  and 
I  stayed  till  5  or  5.30.  I  was  once  in  Miss  Barrow's  room  while  she 
was  alive,  but  there  was  no  prohibition  to  my  going  into  her  room  at  any 
time.  I  remember  the  day  I  was  sent  for  early  in  the  morning,  and  came 
and  found  Miss  Barrow  dead.  I  should  say  it  was  about  7.30  when  I 
arrived  at  the  house.  Mr.  Seddon  was  not  at  home  when  I  arrived.  I 
went  into  the  kitchen  and  had  a  cup  of  tea,  and  then  I  went  upstairs  into 
Miss  Barrow's  room  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon.  On  my  way  from  the 
kitchen  to  Miss  Barrow's  room  I  saw  Mr.  Seddon  in  the  dining-room ;  he 
had  his  overcoat  and  a  muffler  on,  and,  so  far  as  I  could  see,  he  had  just 
come  in  from  the  doctor's.  I  do  not  remember  whether  he  took  his  coat  and 
muffler  off.  Anyhow,  he  went  upstairs  with  Mrs.  Seddon  and  me.  Mrs. 
Seddon  and  I  washed  the  body  and  laid  it  out.  After  we  laid  the  body 
out  I  saw  Mr.  Seddon  open  the  trunk.  I  did  not  see  him  take  anything  out 
of  the  trunk.  I  saw  him  open  the  cash  box,  which  is  now  produced;  he  had 
got  it  out  of  the  trunk.  When  he  opened  the  cash  box  there  were  four 
sovereigns  and  a  half-sovereign  in  the  box.  Some  time  about  April  last 
year  Mrs.  Seddon  told  me  that  she  had  had  a  present  of  a  watch  and  chain 
given  to  her  by  Miss  Barrow  for  her  birthday. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  MUIR — I  had  been  working  for  the  Seddona  for 
seven  or  eight  years. 

Were  you  left  in  charge  of  the  house  in  September  last  ? — I  don't  think 
that  I  was  left  entirely  in  charge  of  the  house;  there  was  a  servant. 
274 


Evidence  for  Defence. 


Mrs.  Alice  Rutt 


Were  you  left  in  the  house? — I  cannot  say  exactly.  I  have  been  in 
the  house  ever  so  many  times  myself.  I  was  in  the  house  in  September 
last  when  the  Seddons  were  away  on  a  holiday. 

Did  you  steal  some  of  the  things  from  the  house? — No,  I  never  did. 

A  quantity  of  bed  linen? — No,  I  did  not  steal  them. 

What  did  you  do  with  them? — Well,  I  will  tell  the  truth.  My  husband 
was  out  of  work.  I  used  to  wash  those  things  at  Mrs.  Seddon's  and  take 
them  home  to  iron  them.  I  pledged  these  things.  I  intended  to  get  them 
back  again,  but  Mr.  and  Mrs  Seddon  came  back  from  their  holiday  quicker 
than  I  thought  they  would,  and  I  had  not  got  them  ready  at  home  for  them. 
They  threatened  to  prosecute  me,  but  I  do  not  think  they  intended  to  do 
so.  I  rather  think  it  was  underneath  the  tray  that  I  saw  the  £4  10s.  in 
the  cash  box,  but  I  really  could  not  say  exactly.  The  gold  was  loose,  it  was 
not  in  a  bag. 

It  would  be  untrue  to  say  that  it  was  in  the  tray? — I  could  not  say  for 
certain,  but  I  thought  it  was  in  the  tray. 

Re-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 
Mrs.  Seddon  was  very  angry  with  me  about  these  things;  I  had  not  stolen 
them,  but  my  husband  being  out  of  work,  I  had  pawned  them  with  the 
intention  of  taking  them  out  again. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  am  quite  sure  that  the  search  of  the 
trunk  was  made  after  the  body  was  laid  out.  The  trunk  generally  stood 
up  under  one  of  the  windows,  and  it  was  not  moved  from  there.  The  cash 
box  was  not  taken  more  than  a  yard  away  from  the  trunk. 

Nothing  was  put  on  the  bed? — Well,  I  think  it  was  on  the  bed  where 
Mr.  Seddon  counted  the  money  out — at  least,  it  did  not  want  much  counting, 
because  I  could  see  what  was  in  it  as  he  opened  it. 

What  was  done  on  the  bed? — Only  the  cash  box  just  laid  on  the  bed. 

Mrs.  LOXGLEY,  recalled,  further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL 
— My  friend  asked  you  as  to  whether  the  Seddons  thought  that  Miss  Barrow 
was  going  to  die.  You  went  upstairs,  did  you  not? — Yes. 

Were  you  standing  outside  with  Mrs.  Seddon? — Before  Mr.  Seddon 
came  up. 

Do  you  remember  Mrs.  Seddon  saying  something  to  you  then? — Yes, 
when  she  brought  the  flannels  down  to  warm. 

Did  you  eventually  go  upstairs  into  the  sick  room  where  she  was? — 
No,  I  did  not  go  in ;  I  stayed  out  on  the  landing. 

But  you  saw  Miss  Barrow? — Only  the  leg  part  of  her.  The  door 
opened  on  to  the  bed,  and  I  could  only  see  her  up  to  her  knees.  I  did 
not  go  into  the  room  that  time. 

Did  you  see  her  at  all  that  night? — Yes,  I  went  in  with  my  brother 
when  he  came  home. 

After  Mr.  Seddon  came  back  you  and  Mrs.  Seddon  and  your  brother 
went  up  together? — No,  Mrs.  Seddon  was  already  in  the  room. 

You  and  Mr.  Seddon  went  up? — Yes. 

Looking  at  Miss  Barrow,  did  you  think  that  she  was  dying  or  anything 
of  the  kind? — Oh,  dear,  no;  she  did  not  look  like  it. 

Further  re-examined  by  the  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  were  only  there 
just  a  moment?  You  did  not  stop  in  the  room? — No,  only  a  second;  the 

275 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mrs.  Longley 

smell  was  too  bad  to  remain  in  the  room.  I  should  not  have  gone  up 
only  through  Mrs.  Seddon  telling  me  how  she  was.  It  was  through  a 
conversation  whilst  we  were  warming  the  flannels.  She  said  to  me, 
"  She  says  she  is  dying."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  if  she  is  dying  she  could  not 
shout  loud  enough  for  you  to  hear  her  at  the  gate,  and  I  do  not  believe  it; 
I  think  she  is  making  more  of  it  than  is  necessary."  Then  when  my  brother 
came  in,  and  she  was  telling  him  over  the  supper  how  troublesome  she  had 
been  during  the  evening,  he  said,  "  What  do  you  think  of  it? "  and  I  said, 
"  Well,  what  can  I  make  of  her  1  I  think  she  is  making  more  fuss  than 
need  be,  because  if  she  was  a  dying  woman  you  could  not  possibly  hear 
her  from  the  top  floor  out  at  the  front  gate." 

Then  apparently  there  was  some  discussion  as  to  whether  it  was  probable 
that  she  was  dying  or  not? — Well,  Mrs.  Seddon  came  and  told  us  what  she 
had  heard,  and  then  my  brother  said,  "  Will  you  come  up  with  me  and  see 
what  you  think  of  her?"  That  is  how  I  came  to  go  into  the  room. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Did  Mrs.  Seddon,  as  far  as  you  could  see, 
appear  genuinely  anxious  to  know  what  your  opinion  was? — Yes,  because 
she  knew  I  had  had  a  lot  of  sickness. 

Never  mind  about  that.  Did  she  appear  to  you  to  be  genuinely  anxious 
about  the  woman's  condition? — Yes. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — That  concludes  our  evidence. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — That  will  be  subject  to  Dr.  Francis  attending 
with  his  books  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Certainly. 


Further  Proof  for  the  Prosecution. 

Dr.  WILLIAM  HENRY  WILLCOX,  recalled,  further  examined  by  the 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL — There  is  no  arsenic  in  white  precipitate  powder.  I 
have  made  a  further  experiment  with  reference  to  the  distal  ends  of  the 
hair.  I  took  some  hair  which  was  quite  free  from  arsenic  and  soaked  it 
for  twenty-four  hours  in  the  blood-stained  fluid  from  Miss  Barrow's  body. 

By  Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — This  blood-stained  fluid  is  fluid  that  was  in 
the  body,  and  not  in  the  coffin  at  all.  It  came  from  the  chest.  It  was 
after  the  post-mortem;  there  was  a  lot  of  the  same  kind  of  fluid,  from 
which  I  made  the  experiment  on  the  second  lot  of  hair. 

Re-examination  continued — There  were  two  analyses  that  I  made  of 
hair;  one  of  them  was  on  the  hair  which  had  been  soaked  in  the  blood- 
stained fluid  which  was  in  the  coffin,  and  the  other  was  upon  some  mixed 
hair  which  I  had  obtained  from  the  undertaker,  and  which  had  not  been 
soaked  in  blood-stained  fluid.  The  hair  which  is  the  subject  of  the  present 
experiment  was  hair  from  a  normal  person,  and  was  quite  free  from 
arsenic.  I  soaked  this  hair  for  twenty-four  hours  in  this  blood-stained  fluid 
— the  same  fluid  as  the  other  hair  had  been  soaked  in.  I  thoroughly  washed 
the  hair  that  had  been  soaked  in  this  experiment  as  completely  as  possible. 
I  then  broke  it  up  to  destroy  the  organic  matter,  and  submitted  the  hair 
to  the  Marsh  test.  I  found  that  the  hair  had  absorbed  an  appreciable 
amount  of  arsenic.  The  mirror — which  I  have  here — showed  that  the  hair 
276 


Miss  Barrow. 


Further  Proof  for  Prosecution. 

Dr.  William  H.  Willcox 

had  absorbed  an  appreciable  amount  of  arsenic.  The  result  of  that  experi- 
ment is  that  hair  when  soaked  in  a  blood-stained  fluid  containing  arsenic 
•will  absorb  the  arsenic  from  that  fluid  throughout  its  entire  length.  There 
is  a  constituent  in  hair  which  will  absorb  arsenic  called  keratine. 

Will  you  tell  us  how  this  experiment  bears  upon  the  view  which  you 
have  already  expressed,  that  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair  obtained  from  the 
coffin  at  the  second  post-mortem  examination  must  have  absorbed  arsenic 
from  the  blood-stained  fluid? — I  have  no  doubt  that  the  presence  of  arsenic 
in  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair  obtained  from  the  coffin  was  due  to  absorption 
from  the  blood-stained  fluid  in  which  the  hair  lay,  and  which  I  know  con- 
tained arsenic.  This  deposition  of  arsenic  in  the  hair  would  occur  after 
death,  and  not  during  life.  Fourteen  days  elapsed  between  my  first  post- 
mortem and  my  second  post-mortem.  I  heard  Dr.  Francis'  evidence. 
From  the  post-mortem  examination  which  I  made  I  found  no  indication  of 
chronic  alcoholic  indulgence.  If  chronic  alcoholic  indulgence  had  been 
continuing  over  a  number  of  years,  and  up  to  the  time  of  death,  I  should 
have  expected  to  find  signs  of  it. 

Further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  MABSHALL  HALL — I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  Dr.  Francis'  evidence  is  not  accurate.  If  there  was  a  condition  of 
gastritis  due  to  abuse  of  alcohol  in  February,  1910,  it  is  quite  possible 
that  there  would  be  no  traces  of  it  in  November,  1910,  if  in  the  interval 
the  alcohol  taking  had  ceased. 

Cirrhosis  of  the  liver  would  not  be  distinguishable  in  a  post-mortem, 
the  body  having  been  buried  all  that  time? — Cirrhosis  of  the  liver  would 
have  been  distinguishable;  there  was  no  cirrhosis.  There  were  no  signs 
of  any  advanced  alcoholic  indulgence  at  all. 

The  point  I  am  suggesting  to  you  is  that  a  person  who  has  once  had 
gastritis  brought  on  by  abuse  of  alcohol,  when  she  had  an  attack  of 
diarrhoea  later  on  the  mucous  membrane  of  the  intestines  is  more  liable 
to  damage  by  the  diarrhoea  than  would  be  if  she  had  not  been  accus- 
tomed to  drink ;  it  would  predispose  her  to  cirrhosis  of  the  liver  ? — It  would 
depend  entirely  on  the  extent  of  the  inflammation  set  up  by  the  alcohol. 
There  might  have  been  one  or  two  attacks  of  gastritis  years  ago  from 
alcohol  which  would  have  made  all  the  difference. 

By  Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — This  is  merely  common  sense ;  it  is  not 
science.  If  any  organ  of  the  body  is  attacked  by  something  which  is  not 
due  to  Nature  there  may  be  traces  kept  for  an  indefinitely  long  or  short 
period,  and  so  much  must  depend  upon  the  strength  of  the  constitution, 
the  age  of  the  person,  and  so  forth,  that  neither  you  nor  Solomon  could 
give  any  firm  opinion  about  it.  Is  that  right? — Yes,  the  conditions  vary 
so  much. 

By  Mr.  MAKSHALL  HALL — I  showed  Mr.  Rosenheim  all  my  results  of 
the  analysis  of  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair.  My  analysis  showed  one- 
eighteenth  part  of  arsenious  acid  per  pound  of  hair  in  the  tips. 

Unless  you  explain  that  from  some  outside  source  you  agree  that  is 
indicative  of  a  course  of  arsenic  taking  over  a  period  of  time? — It  might  be. 

But  according  to  all  the  best  reports,  it  probably  is? — Well,  practically 
no  analyses  of  hair  have  been  made  in  acute  arsenical  poisoning. 

Do  you  not  know  that  the  result  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the 
effect  of  arsenic  on  the  hair  was  to  lay  it  down,  as  far  as  they  could  lay^ 

277 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Dr.  William  H.  Wllleox 

it  down,  that  the  presence  of  arsenic  in  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair  was 
indicative  of  a  prolonged  course  of  arsenic  taking? — Yes,  that  might  be  so. 

So  I  understand  that,  as  you  do  not  think  there  was  a  prolonged  course 
of  arsenic  taking  in  this  case,  you  have  made  these  further  experiments 
to  prove  that  a  similar  condition  of  hair  can  be  arrived  at  by  the  soakage 
of  the  hair  in  blood-stained  fluid  containing  arsenic? — Yes,  I  have  made 
that  experiment.  That  experiment  would  not  apply  to  the  hair  which  was 
cut  off  at  the  undertaker's  shop.  There  was  a  similar  amount  of  arsenic 
in  the  hair  that  was  cut  off  at  the  undertaker's  shop — one- twentieth  of  a 
grain  per  pound.  The  hair  obtained  from  the  undertaker's  was  fairly  long 
hair,  and  it  included,  no  doubt,  some  of  the  roots.  My  mirror  here  is 
a  mirror  of  a  300th  part  of  a  milligramme  of  arsenic. 

Your  deduction  from  that  is  that  there  was  one-third  of  a  grain  of 
arsenic  per  pound  of  hair  which  you  soaked  in  this  way? — Yes,  there  was 
one  300th  part  of  a  milligramme  in  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair.  It  was 
the  same  size  of  mirror,  but  I  took  a  little  larger  quantity  of  hair.  There 
is  no  difference  between  the  distal  and  the  proximal  ends  except  that  the 
proximal  ends  might  be  thicker  and  might  absorb  more.  It  is  only  upon 
the  question  of  what  gets  into  the  hair  during  life,  or  whilst  metabolic 
changes  are  going  on,  that  this  becomes  important. 


Ninth  Day— Wednesday,   isth  March,   1912. 

The  Court  met  at  10.15  a.m. 

JOHN  ARTHUR  FRANCIS,  recalled,  further  cross-examined  by  the 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  now  produce  my  book.  In  the  copy  which  I  pro- 
duced in  Court,  which  was  taken  from  my  books,  there  is  nothing  to 
indicate  what  Miss  Barrow  was  suffering  from,  but  the  prescriptions  nr'ght 
show  a  little.  I  have  got  the  prescriptions  in  my  book.  "What  1  have 
produced  is  a  verbatim  copy  of  the  dates  of  my  attendances.  I  never 
attended  Miss  Barrow  for  any  alcoholic  indulgence  after  March,  1909. 
In  July,  1909,  and  December.  1909,  I  attended  her  for  mere  general 
debility ;  she  asked  me  for  a  pick-me-up  merely.  She  brought  the  boy 
with  her  at  the  same  time,  and  also  in  February,  1910.  There  was 
nothing  of  any  consequence  the  matter  with  her  then  ;  she  wanted  a  tonic. 

Mrs.  MARGARET  ANN  SEDDON.  prisoner,  recalled,  by  Mr.  JUSTICE 
BUCKNILL — The  disagreements  which  afterwards  led  to  my  leaving  my 
husband  first  began  about  October,  1909.  At  that  time  I  was  carrying 
on  the  wardrobe  business.  Those  disputes  were  simply  disputes  about 
the  business,  the  money  taken  by  me,  and  that  sort  of  thing,  and  the  lot 
numbers  getting  off  the  clothes.  We  had  a  dispute,  and  I  left  him  on  3rd 
January,  I  think  it  was,  and  came  back  five  weeks  afterwards. 

Proof  closed* 
278 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — May  it  please  you,  my  lord.  Gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  it  is  in  no  spirit  of  affectation  that  I  offer  you  my  congratulations, 
at  any  rate,  that  we  are  nearing  the  end  of  this  very  long  trial.  Again, 
it  is  in  no  spirit  of  affectation  that  I  tender  you  on  behalf  of  the  defence 
my  grateful  thanks  for  the  care  and  attention  which  you  have  bestowed 
upon  this  case  up  to  the  present.  I  am  sure  that  that  care  and  attention 
will  be  bestowed  upon  it  up  to  the  end. 

Gentlemen,  nobody  can  attempt  to  deny  that  this  is  one  of  the  most 
interesting  cases  that  probably  has  ever  been  tried  either  in  this  building  or 
the  building  of  which  it  is  a  successor,  and  I  presume  you  will  not  grudge 
the  time  that  you  have  taken  in  dealing  with  a  matter  of  such  vital  im- 
portance, because  upon  your  verdict  depends  the  life  of  one  or  two  human 
beings. 

The  task  that  has  been  laid  upon  my  learned  friend  for  the  Crown  is 
no  invidious  task,  I  can  assure  you ;  and  I  think  you  will  probably  realise 
that  I  and  my  learned  friends  have  had  imposed  upon  us  a  very  considerable 
burden,  entailing  a  very  large  amount  of  work  in  order  to  do  our  duty. 
Fortunately,  in  this  country  it  is  the  privilege  of  people  who  are  accused  of 
offences  to  avail  themselves  of  the  services  of  advocates  to  appear  for  them. 
It  would  be  deplorable  if  that  were  not  so ;  otherwise,  with  all  the  skill 
that  the  Crown,  with  its  unlimited  power,  can  command,  and  which  is  at  the 
disposal  of  the  prosecution,  it  would  indeed  be  a  very  one-sided  matter  if 
the  defence  were  not  allowed  to  put  their  case  before  you  in  the  way  they 
thought  best,  and  by  the  means  which  they  thought  best  on  behalf  of  the 
accused  person. 

Gentlemen,  appearing  as  I  do  here  with  my  two  learned  friends  Mr. 
Dunstan  and  Mr.  Orr  on  behalf  of  the  man  Seddon,  it  would  be  impossible 
for  me  in  dealing  with  the  case  to  avoid  making  some  reference  to  Mrs. 
Seddon,  although  technically  I  am  not  representing  her;  her  interests  are 
in  the  hands  of  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Rentoul.  However,  from  time  to 
time,  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary  in  the  course  of  what  I  have  to  say 
to  you  to  refer  to  her  in  passing,  but  I  am  sure  that  you  will  not  take 
anything  I  say  as  in  any  way  attempting  intentionally  to  injure  her. 

In  this  country  the  administration  of  criminal  justice  stands,  I  think, 
upon  a  platform  which  is  unique.  As  far  as  I  know,  there  is  no  other 
country  in  the  world  that  has  attained  the  perfection  of  criminal  adminis- 
tration of  justice  that  has  been  attained  in  this  country.  Our  judicial 
system  is  above  question,  and  fortunately  we  still  hold  in  this  country 
the  doctrine,  which  I  think  has  been  departed  from  in  all  other  countries, 
that  every  accused  person  is  presumed  to  be  innocent  until  proved 
guilty.  The  presumption  in  other  countries,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  very 
often  is,  that  the  moment  a  prisoner  is  arrested  by  the  police  he  or  she  is 
presumed  to  be  guilty,  and  he  is  subjected  to  searching  interrogatories, 
and  every  sort  of  presumption  is  raised  against  the  accused  person  until 
it  becomes  very  difficult  to  deal  with  the  case  on  an  equitable  and  fair 
basis.  Now,  nothing  of  the  kind  prevails  in  this  country.  I  might 
start,  and  I  shall  probably  finish,  by  telling  you  the  same  thing.  In  this 
case,  as  in  every  case,  the  presumption  is  that  both  of  these  people  are 
innocent,  and  you  should  not  find  them  guilty  until  that  presumption  is 
displaced  by  evidence.  You  hear  people  say  that  in  Scotland,  where  the 

279 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


jurisdiction  is  in  some  way  akin  to  our  jurisdiction,  there  are  three  ver- 
dicts— there  are  the  verdicts  of  "guilty,"  "not  proven,"  and  "not 
guilty,"  and  it  is  a  pity  we  do  not  have  three  such  verdicts  here  in  this 
country.  We  do  not  have  them  because — and  I  say  this  without  fear  of 
contradiction ;  there  is  no  possibility  of  argument — the  two  verdicts  that 
are  known  to  the  law  here  include  the  three  verdicts  which  are  dealt  with 
under  the  Scottish  system  of  jurisprudence,  because  in  this  country  we  call 
the  verdict  of  "not  proven,"  "not  guilty."  Therefore  you  have  got 
two  verdicts,  "guilty"  and  "not  guilty,"  and  unless  you  are  satisfied 
that  the  case  is  proved  against  the  prisoner,  your  verdict  must  be  a  verdict 
of  "  not  guilty." 

Gentlemen,    what   is  the   case   for   the   Crown   here?        It   has    been 
altered.       Before  the  magistrates,   when  these  prisoners  were  committed 
for  trial,  there  was  a  charge  against  them  of  murdering  Miss  Barrow  by 
administering  one  fatal  dose  of  arsenic;  the  charge  wa.s  merely  the  charge 
of   murdering   Miss   Barrow  by   the  administration   of   one   fatal  dose   of 
arsenic,  and  the  evidence  that  was  given  by  the  scientific  expert  who  wa« 
called  for  the  Crown  was  this,   "It  is  impossible  to  say  what  the  doee 
was  in  this  case.       It  must  have  been  considerably  more  than  two  grains. 
I  should  call  a  moderately  fatal  dose  something  about  five  grains  or  more. 
I  could  not  form  an  estimate  in  this  case.       I  think  it  would  come  within 
my  definition  of  a  moderately  large  fatal  dose.       The  death  would  probably 
be  within  three  days   after  the  moderately  large  fatal  dose.        It  would 
probably   kill   within  six   hours — any   time   between   six    and   twenty-four 
hours.       This  would  depend  on  the  state  of  the  patient.       If  there  had 
been  gastro  enteritis  that  would  hasten  the  effects  of  the  arsenic."       In 
opening  this  case,  I  think  you  will  find  that  that  was  practically  the  theory 
that  was  put  forward  by  the  learned  Attorney-General.       But  the  case  for 
the  Crown  consists  of  other  matters  besides  strict  evidence  of  the  proof  of 
poisoning  as  against  these  two  persons.       There  is  a  good  deal  of  prejudice — 
a  great  deal  of  prejudice,  I  might  say — and  a  great  deal  of  suspicion,  and 
a  great  deal  of  scientific  evidence  I  shall  have  to  deal  with,  but  I  submit 
to  you  that  there  is   not  sufficient  proof  here  that  either   of  these   two 
prisoners  administered  a  dose  of  arsenic  to  this  woman  with  the  intention 
of  causing  her  death.       Originally,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out  to  you. 
the  charge  was  practically  involved  in  the  administration  of  one  moderately 
large  fatal  dose  within  three  days  of  the  death.       Now,  there  is  a  shifting 
of  that  proposition.       It  is  suggested  now  that  the  process  may  have  com- 
menced upon  1st  September,  and  continued  during  the  whole  thirteen  days 
that  Miss  Barrow  was  confined  to  her  room.       As  I  submit  to  you,  it  is 
changed     because     of     the     difficulty     of     proving     the     administration 
of    this     so-called     "moderately     large     fatal    dose."       It     is     changed 
because  it   is   suggested   that  the   poison   was    purchased   on   August   the 
26th,    and   was    immediately    begun  to   be    used.        It    is    also    changed, 
I  submit  to  you,  for  another  reason — because  the  scientific  evidence  in  this 
case  as  originally  given  was  self -destructive.       The  presence  of  arsenic  in 
the  hair  of  this  dead  woman,  as  far  as  the  latest  scientific  knowledge  (and 
I  submit  that  scientific  knowledge  is  not  infallible),   so  far   as  it  goes, 
shows  that  the  administration  of  arsenic  must  have  been  before  three  days 
of  the  death.       It  is  in  the  hair  which  is  cut  off  at  the  undertaker's  shop 
280 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

on  15th  September,  and  therefore  it  could  not  have  been  contaminated  by 
any  fluid  exuding  from  the  body.  And  the  presence  of  that  arsenic  in 
that  hair  is,  I  submit  to  you,  as  far  as  any  scientific  evidence  can  be 
satisfactory  upon  the  matter,  conclusive  evidence  that  there  was  arsenic 
taken  by  Miss  Barrow  independently  of  any  dose  that  may  have  been 
administered  or  any  quantity  which  may  have  been  taken  within  a  short 
period  of  the  death. 

I  should  like  to  point  out  to  you  what  absence  of  proof  there  is  in 
this  case.  First  of  all,  there  is  absolutely  no  proof  that  Mr.  Seddon  ever 
handled  any  arsenic.  Secondly,  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  Mr. 
Seddon  ever  administered  any  arsenic.  Thirdly,  there  is  no  proof  that 
Mr.  Seddon  ever  knew  that  Mather's  fly-papers  contained  arsenic.  Fourthly, 
there  is  no  proof  that,  even  if  he  did  know  it,  he  knew  that  they  contained 
a  quantity  sufficient  to  be  dangerous  to  human  life,  and  that  that  quantity 
could  be  extracted  by  a  simple  process.  I  am  going  to  submit  to  you  that 
there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  before  you  to  show  that  Miss  Barrow  did 
in  fact  die  of  arsenical  poisoning.  The  evidence,  in  my  submission  to  you, 
is  quite  consistent  with  her  having  died  of  gastro-enteritis,  accelerated 
possibly,  as  Dr.  Willcox  says,  by  the  taking  of  some  arsenic.  Then, 
further,  there  is  no  evidence,  if  she  did  die  of  arsenical  poisoning,  or  if  her 
death  was  hastened  by  arsenical  poisoning,  it  was  not  self-administered  or 
accidently  administered,  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  purpose  or  inten- 
tion in  administering  it.  Lastly,  I  say  there  is  not  sufficient  realisable 
evidence  which  will  enable  you,  as  men  of  the  world,  to  say  affirmatively 
that  you  believe  the  quantity  of  arsenic  calculated  to  be  in  this  body — 
not  found  in  the  body,  but  calculated  to  be  in  the  body — there  is  not 
sufficient  evidence  for  you  to  say  that  those  quantities  are  based  upon  a 
sufficiently  accurate  basis  to  enable  you  to  rely  upon  them  absolutely. 
Gentlemen,  those  are  some  of  the  points  that  I  shall  have  to  deal  with 
in  this  case,  and  I  submit  to  you  that  every  one  of  those  points  has  to 
be  proved  affirmatively  to  your  reasonable  satisfaction  before  you  can 
convict  either  of  these  prisoners  of  this  charge  of  murder. 

There  is  prejudice,  gentlemen,  any  quantity  of  it.  The  whole  thing 
has  been  overladen  with  prejudice.  It  is  one  of  those  curious  cases  where, 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  is  necessary  in  law  to  prove  a  motive  for  the 
poisoning,  for  the  object  of  proving  a  motive,  this  man  and  this  woman 
have  been  exposed  to  merciless  cross-examination  on  the  suggestion  that 
they  were  thieves.  In  no  other  circumstances  would  that  have  been 
possible.  If  this  man  had  been  charged  with  any  other  crime,  he  could 
never  have  been  cross-examined,  nor  could  the  woman  have  been  cross- 
examined,  as  my  learned  friend  the  Attorney-General  frankly  admitted,  to 
carry  out  the  suggestion  that  they  had  robbed  this  woman.  We  are  not 
trying  these  people  on  a  charge  of  robbery.  You  will  have  to  take  the 
greatest  care  in  this  case  that  you  do  not  allow  the  prejudice  which  has 
been  brought  into  it  to  influence  you  unduly.  I  do  not  say  that  it  has  been 
unnecessarily  brought  into  it,  because  the  learned  Attorney-General,  who 
is  at  the  head  of  our  profession,  exercises  a  discretion  which  is  almost 
judicial,  and  he  decided  that  it  was  necessary  in  the  interests  of  the  case 
that  this  prejudice  should  be  imported  into  it;  but  I  know  this,  and  I 
know  that  the  learned  judge  will  tell  you  also,  that,  whereas  it  may  b» 

281 


Trial   of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


necessary  to  deal  with  these  prejudicial  matters  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing whether  the  motive  alleged  is  sufficient  or  insufficient,  you  cannot  deal 
with  these  prejudicial  matters  on  the  question  of  deciding,  ay  or  no,  is 
this  man  or  this  woman  guilty  of  murder?  Gentlemen,  on  the  question  of 
motive  and  of  opportunity,  as  the  learned  Attorney-General  opened  the 
case,  I  do  not  question  it.  If  you  are  against  these  people,  and  if  you 
think  the  evidence  is  against  them,  I  do  not  say  for  one  moment  there 
is  not  sufficient  evidence  of  opportunity,  and  sufficient  evidence  of  motive, 
although  the  motive  I  submit  to  you  is  nothing  like  so  strong  as  represented 
to  you  by  the  learned  Attorney-General.  Then  I  shall  have  to  deal  with 
the  question  of  the  cause  of  death.  Of  course,  there  is  some  evidence  that 
I  shall  have  to  deal  with  having  regard  to  the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Seddon, 
because  that  is  the  only  evidence  I  am  going  to  ask  you  to  deal  with,  on 
the  Question  of  the  purchase  of  fly-papers,  and  then,  of  course,  I  shall  have 
to  deal  with  the  medical  and  scientific  deductions. 

Gentlemen,  this  is  a  joint  charge.  This  is  a  charge  against  these  two 
people.  There  has  been  no  attempt  from  first  to  last  to  differentiate 
between  these  two.  It  is  a  charge  against  these  two  people  that  they 
practically  conspired  together  to  kill  this  woman,  and  that  they  killed  her ; 
and  the  weakness  of  the  case  against  the  one  is  the  weakness  against  both. 
This  is  charged  as  a  joint  offence,  and  you  cannot,  under  our  system  of 
criminal  law,  say  on  behalf  of  the  Crown,  ''  Here  is  some  evidence.  It  is 
suspicious  evidence.  It  points  to  one  or  two  people.  We  cannot  say  which, 
so  we  will  put  them  both  in  the  dock,  and  let  the  jury  take  their  choice." 
Of  course,  no  man  who  occupies  any  position  at  the  bar  would 
ever  put  forward  such  a  proposition.  You  are  not  to  take  your  choice. 
You  have  got  to  deal  with  this  case  as  it  is  launched — a  charge  of  wilful 
murder  against  these  two  people — a  charge  that  has  been  deliberately  and 
advisedly  made  after  protracted  hearings,  where  the  woman  wras  arrested 
long  after  the  arrest  of  the  man,  I  presume  upon  some  authority  which 
was  given  to  the  police.  Therefore,  gentlemen,  this  is  a  joint  charge,  and 
my  learned  friend.  I  submit  to  you,  has  got  to  stand  or  fall  upon  this  case 
as  put  forward. 

I  have  already  reminded  you  of  what  the  charge  is.  It  is  a  charge 
of  murder — not  a  charge  of  larceny,  or  fraud,  or  getting  the  better  of  this 
woman — nothing  of  the  sort.  There  is  no  suggestion  of  fraud  so  far  as 
the  transactions  which  I  will  compendiously  call  "  the  annuity  transactions  " 
are  concerned.  There  is  no  evidence  at  all  to  suggest  that  those  transactions 
were  fraudulent,  and  there  is  no  suggestion  of  fraud  made  on  behalf  of  the 
Crown.  The  only  possible  thing  in  which  the  matter  might  be  dangerous, 
so  far  as  your  honest  deliberations  are  concerned,  is  that  you  might  think 
that  the  proposition  is,  "  We  have  cross-examined  these  people  to  show 
they  are  thieves.  If  you  think  they  are  thieves  therefore  you  must  think 
they  are  murderers."  It  is  a  fallacy.  It  is  a  proposition  which  will  not 
hold  water  in  a  Court.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question 
we  have  to  deal  with.  You  have  heard  the  explanation  of  both  these  people. 
You  have  had  the  opportunity  of  judging  for  yourselves  the  demeanour  of 
both  in  the  witness-box,  and  you  have  heard  their  explanation  in  the 
matters  -with  regard  to  which  these  suggestions  have  been  made. 

The  verdict  from  you  must  be  a  unanimous  verdict.  You  know  that 
282 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon, 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

aa  well  as  I  do.  You  know  perfectly  well  in  a  case  of  this  kind  no  man 
surrenders  his  individual  opinion.  There  is  no  question  of  majority.  Each 
one  of  you  has  to  give  a  verdict  upon  the  evidence  that  is  brought 
forward,  as  you  have  sworn  when  you  took  the  oath  to  try  the  case.  And 
before  you  can  convict  this  man  of  murder  each  one  of  you  must  be  in  this 
position;  you  must  be  prepared  to  make  a  statutory  declaration  on  your 
oath  that  you  believe  to  the  best  of  your  belief  that  the  man  has  murdered 
Miss  Barrow.  If  you  have  any  reasonable  doubt,  such  a  reasonable  doubt 
as  would  apply  to  you  in  business  affairs,  then,  gentlemen,  you  are  bound 
to  give  the  accused  person,  not  the  "  benefit  "  of  that  doubt,  but  to  acquit 
him.  As  has  been  said  by  great  judges  over  and  over  again,  it  is  not  a 
question  of  "  the  benefit  of  the  doubt."  If  the  result  of  the  case  is  that  the 
Crown  has  not  removed  all  doubt  from  your  minds,  the  prisoner  is  entitled, 
as  of  right,  to  be  acquitted,  and  he  is  entitled  to  demand  at  your  hands  a 
verdict  of  acquittal,  because  the  proof  by  the  evidence  has  not  amounted 
to  such  as  would  satisfy  you  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  he  or  she 
ia  guilty.  If  any  one  of  you  has  any  reasonable  doubt  upon  this  matter, 
you  are  entitled  to  give  effect  to  it. 

Gentlemen,  do  not  sweep  these  two  people  off  their  feet  by  the  waves 
of  prejudice,  and  then  drown  them  in  the  backwash  of  suspicion.  Do  not 
let  this  prejudice  in  this  case  as  against  these  people — because  that  pre- 
judice exists,  and  I  will  deal  with  it  in  a  moment;  I  know  the  points  that 
are  prejudicing  everybody's  mind  who  has  had  anything  to  do  with  this 
case — do  not  let  that  prejudice  warp  your  judgment  and  blind  your  eyes 
as  to  what  the  real  issue  you  are  now  trying  is.  I  say  it  again,  and  I  say  it 
advisedly,  that  the  prejudice  in  this  case  overlays  all  the  evidence  until  it 
has  become  a  real  danger  to  justice;  it  becomes  a  real  danger  that  you 
may  do  an  injustice,  being  misguided  by  the  prejudice  in  which  the  case 
is  involved. 

I  have  no  complaint  to  make  whatever  of  the  way  in  which  the  case 
has  been  put  forward  by  the  Crown,  except  for  one  thing  which  I  have  to 
deal  with.  In  fact,  if  I  may  say  so,  without  suggestion  of  fulsome  flattery, 
the  nature  of  the  prosecution  is  always  more  deadly  when  it  is  conducted 
with  the  fairness  with  which  this  case  has  been  conducted  by  the  learned 
Attorney-General,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  a  model  to  those  who  practise  in 
these  Courts  of  the  way  in  which  prosecutions  should  be  conducted  by  the 
Crown.  But  there  is  one  incident  about  which  I  have  a  grievous  complaint 
to  make,  and  that  is  the  incident  with  regard  to  Maggie  Seddon. 

Gentlemen,  I  submit  to  you  it  was  a  most  unjustifiable  thing  on  the 
part  of  Inspector  Ward  to  subject  that  girl  on  2nd  February  to  the  cross- 
examination  which  he  subjected  her  to.  I  admit  that  it  is  perfectly  proper 
that  police  officers  should  ask  questions  of  witnesses  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  information,  but  here  they  did  not  want  to  obtain  information;, 
they  had  the  information;  they  knew  the  answers  to  both  the  questions 
they  were  asking.  Their  emissaries  had  watched  this  girl,  and  had  seen- 
her  go  to  Price's  shop,  and  they  knew  perfectly  well  that  she  had  asked 
for  fly-papers,  and  had  been  refused;  and  yet,  when  the  police  have  made 
every  effort  to  get  Mr.  Thorley  to  identify  her,  and  he  failed,  on  this  day,, 
when  these  two  poor  wretches  are  awaiting  their  trial  on  a  charge  of 
murder.  Inspector  Ward  takes  this  child  of  fifteen  years  of  age,  with  her 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


father  and  mother  locked  up  in  different  prisons,  into  the  gaoler's  room 
with  another  detective  and  asks  her  two  questions.  What  for?  Not  to  get 
truthful  answers  to  them,  because  he  knew  perfectly  well  what  the  answers 
were;  they  had  watched  the  girl,  and  he  knew  perfectly  well  that  she  had 
been  to  Price's.  He  does  not  even  have  the  kindness  to  talk  about  Price's; 
he  talks  about  "  a  chemist  at  the  corner  of  the  road."  What  does  he 
ask  the  questions  for,  then  ?  In  order  to  get,  if  he  possibly  can,  a  denial, 
which  he  can  use  as  a  lie  so  as  to  discredit  her  when  she  is  called  into  the 
witness-box,  as  she  knows  she  will  be  called  to  contradict  Thorley  upon 
the  question  of  purchasing  the  fly-papers  on  26th  August.  Gentlemen, 
I  say  it  is  indefensible.  There  is  absolutely  no  justification  for  it  in  our 
English  methods.  It  never  has  been  done  before,  and  I  trust  it  never 
will  be  done  again.  If  Inspector  Ward  did  not  honestly  want  to  know 
whether  this  little  girl  had  been  to  Price's,  what  right  had  he  to  ask  her 
these  questions?  He  was  getting  up  this  case  for  the  Crown,  and  what 
i  ight  had  he  to  cross-examine  this  girl  to  get  a  statement  from  her  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  endeavouring  to  get  her  to  tell  an  untruth,  in  order  to 
discredit  her  evidence,  as  it  was  discredited,  when  she  was  put  into  the 
box! 

What  is  the  result?  It  does  injustice,  gentlemen.  I  could  not  ask  that 
girl  any  questions  at  all.  I  put  the  girl  into  the  box,  as  I  said,  for  cross- 
examination.  It  was  almost  immaterial,  having  regard  to  the  evidence  of 
Mrs.  Seddon,  whether  she  did  in  fact  buy  four  fly-papers  on  26th  August, 
but  I  had  cross-examined  Mr.  Thorley  upon  instructions,  and  I  thought 
it  was  only  fair,  after  the  cross-examination  of  Thorley,  to  put  the  girl 
in  the  box.  After  my  learned  friend's  cross-examination  of  Mrs.  Seddon, 
I  might  have  asked  in  re-examination  whether  the  girl  had  ever  told  her 
she  had  bought  fly-papers  at  Thorley's — by  our  rules  of  evidence.  I 
ref rained  from  doing  so.  I  put  the  girl  into  the  box  for  cross-examination. 
My  learned  friend  never  deigned  to  cross-examine  her  upon  the  two  main 
Issues  upon  which  she  could  have  been  cross-examined.  He  merely  con- 
tented himself  with  putting  forward  this  bit  of  successful  cross-examination 
of  Ward's,  whereby  Ward,  by  his  questions,  had  got  her  to  say  something 
that  was  not  true,  the  first  question  being  a  carefully  involved  question, 
and  the  truth  being  told  immediately  afterwards  in  reply  to  the  second. 
You  are  asked  to  disbelieve  her  upon  that.  My  learned  friend  never 
asked  her  about  the  chain,  and  he  never  asked  her  one  word  about  the 
posting  of  the  letter,  of  which  she  knew  perfectly  well.  It  was  no  good  my 
asking  her.  If  the  child  had  sworn  right  up  to  the  hilt  that  the  chain 
had  been  given  to  her,  and  if  she  had  sworn  that  she  had  posted  the  letter, 
and  if  she  had  sworn  that  Smith  had  touched  her  on  the  shoulder  and 
said  "  Good  afternoon "  at  that  time,  when  my  learned  friend  came  to 
cross-examine  her  she  would  have  been  subjected  to  the  deadly  cross- 
examination,  "  You  told  a  lie  to  Inspector  Ward,  and  you  are  not  to  be 
believed  upon  your  oath." 

The  only  thing  in  the  case  which  I  complain  about  of  the  conduct 
of  my  learned  friend  is  when  he  turned  round  and  said,  "  Why  doa'i  you 
«all  her?  "  It  is  no  part  of  the  defence  to  call  witnesses  to  disprove 
what  is  not  properly  proved  by  the  Crown.  The  proper  way  to  prove 
that  this  girl  bought  fly-papers  was  to  put  the  girl  who  is  alleged  to  have 

284 


Closing  Speech   on  behalf  of  F.  H.   Seddon* 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

bought  them  in  the  box,  or,  having  regard  to  the  flimsy  identification 
that  is  put  forward  by  Mr.  Thorley,  to  have  satisfied  themselves  that  th* 
evidence  was  not  reliable,  and  therefore  not  have  called  Mr.  Thorley 
upon  it  at  all. 

Gentlemen,  I  appeal  to  you  with  confidence  so  far  as  that  part  of 
this  case  is  concerned,  and  I  appeal  to  you  on  behalf  of  that  child,  as 
well  as  on  behalf  of  her  mother  and  father.  It  is  not  true  that  that 
child  was  ever  sent  to  buy  four  packets  of  fly-papers  on  26th  August. 
Nor  is  it  true  that  she  ever  went  into  Mr.  Thorley's  shop  for  the  f  urpose 
of  buying  fly-papers  at  all.  As  I  said  before,  and  I  say  again,  I  am 
not  suggesting  that  Mr.  Thorley  deliberately  told  you  what  he  believes 
to  be  false — nothing  of  the  kind.  I  would  not  make  such  an  accusa- 
tion against  a  perfectly  independent  witness  of  that  kind.  Vl'~bat  I 
suggest  to  you  is  this — he  could  not  identify  the  buyer  of  those  fly-papers. 
He  has  told  us  when  the  police  came  to  him  he  was  unable  to  tell  them 
he  could  identify  her,  and  when  at  last  on  2nd  February  he  is  taken 
down  to  the  Police  Court  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  the  person,  he 
does  identify  the  girl  he  has  seen  on  two  occasions  when  she  had  been 
to  the  private  door  to  see  his  daughter.  He  knows  perfectly  well  that 
one  of  the  people  who  is  put  up  is  Margaret  Seddon,  and  having  seen 
the  picture  of  the  girl  in  the  illustrated  papers  before  he  went  down — 
it  almost  might  be  a  case  of  auto-suggestion — he  identifies  this  girl 
because  hers  is  the  only  face  amongst  the  twenty  people  he  knows. 
First  of  all,  she  is  one  of  the  only  two  children  that  are  there,  and, 
secondly,  she  is  the  only  one  of  the  whole  lot  that  he  has  ever  seen ;  and 
he  has  seen  her  upon  occasions  when  she  has  been  to  call  upon  his 
daughter.  I  submit  to  you  a  more  flimsy  bit  of  evidence  was  never  put 
forward  in  any  case,  leave  alone  in  a  capital  case,  than  the  suggested 
identification  of  Margaret  Seddon  by  Mr.  Thorley  after  an  interval  of 
something  like  five  months.  On  26th  August,  1911,  Mr.  Thorley  sells 
four  fly-papers  to  a  girl,  as  he  says,  and  he  has  no  entry  of  any  sort  or 
shape  in  his  book  of  the  transaction.  Then  on  2nd  February,  having 
in  the  interval  told  the  police  he  cannot  identify  the  girl,  he  is  taken 
down  to  the  Police  Court  where  Margaret  Seddon  is,  and  then  he  pro- 
fesses to  identify  her,  and  asks  you  to  rely  upon  his  identification  of  the 
person  who  bought  these  four  fly-papers  on  26th  August.  Gentlemen, 
I  say  that  is  not  evidence  upon  which  you  can  rely,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  whatever  that  you  can  rely  upon  that  any  fly-papers  ever  came 
into  this  house  until  they  were  purchased  on  the  4th  or  5th  September 
(probably  Monday,  the  4th)  by  the  prisoner,  Mrs.  Seddon,  herself. 

Before  we  go  any  further,  let  us  consider  all  the  assumptions  against 
Mr.  Seddon.  There  is  a  strong  mass  of  assumptions  in  this  case  which 
you  are  asked  to  make.  First  of  all,  you  have  got  to  assume  that  he 
had  an  intimate  knowledge  of  arsenic  as  a  poison  and  its  effects ;  secondly, 
you  have  to  assume  that  his  knowledge  was  such  that  he  knew  that  the 
symptoms  of  arsenical  poisoning  were  identical  with  those  of  epidemic 
diarrhoea;  thirdly,  you  have  got  to  assume  that  he  knew  the  quantity 
for  a  fatal  dose,  or  the  alternative  theory,  that  he  knew  exactly  how 
much  to  administer  for  a  gradual  dose  which  would  ultimately  terminate 
fatally  and  yet  not  excite  suspicion  during  the  interval  of  its  administra- 

285 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


tion.  Next,  you  have  got  to  assume  against  Lira  that  he  knew  that  the 
fly-papers  contained  arsenic  in  sufficient  quantity  to  kill  an  adult  human 
being.  Next,  you  have  got  to  assume  that  he  knew  how  to  extract  the 
arsenic  from  the  paper  in  a  proper  way,  so  as  to  get  the  maximum 
amount  of  arsenic  out  of  each  paper.  And  yet  (you  have  got  to  assume 
the  negative  against  him  now),  knowing  all  this,  you  have  got  to  assume 
that,  having  made  this  extract  of  arsenic  for  the  purpose  of  poisoning 
this  woman,  he  never  discovered  the  one  thing  which  is  the  characteristic 
•of  arsenic,  which  can  be  found  in  any  book  dealing  with  arsenic,  that  it 
has  a  preservative  effect  upon  the  body,  and  therefore  from  that  point 
of  view,  and  from  the  prisoner's  point  of  view,  it  is  one  of  the  most 
dangerous  poisons  that  can  be  used.  You  have  got  to  assume  that  he  was 
entirely  ignorant  of  that,  or  you  must  assume  this,  that  he  could  have 
been  such  a  madman  as  not  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  of 
cremating  her,  which  would  destroy  all  traces  of  his  crime.  You  have 
also  to  assume  that  he  knew  the  symptoms  of  arsenical  poisoning  were 
so  identical  with  those  of  epidemic  diarrhoea  that  it  was  safe  for  a  doctor 
to  visit  the  patient  from  day  to  day  as  she  was  being  poisoned,  and  that  he 
knew  that  merely  an  inspection  of  the  stools  and  vomit  would  not  indicate 
the  presence  of  poison  in  the  patient.  Lastly,  you  must  assume  that 
he  knew  that  the  effect  of  arsenic  was  such  that  in  the  case  of  a  person 
being  poisoned  by  arsenic,  the  external  appearance  of  the  dead  body 
was  so  indistinguishable  from  that  of  a  person  who  had  died  from  epidemic 
diarrhoea  that  it  would  be  perfectly  safe  to  call  in  a  doctor  in  order  to 
get  a  death  certificate.  While  I  am  on  that,  do  not  forget  that  he 
never  asked  for  a  death  certificate.  He  went  to  get  Dr.  Sworn  to  see 
the  body.  Dr.  Sworn  said  it  was  not  necessary  to  see  the  body,  and 
he  tendered  to  him  voluntarily  the  death  certificate  which  he  got.  Gentle- 
men, eight  assumptions  have  to  be  made  against  these  two  people.  Am 
I  not  justified  in  saying  that  every  one  of  them  is  a  violent  assumption? 

Gentlemen,  there  is  another  comment.  If  this  man  or  this  woman 
knew  that  arsenic  was  a  poison,  and  they  knew  of  its  action,  and  they 
knew  that  it  simulated  the  symptoms  of  epidemic  diarrhoea,  they  must 
have  known  those  symptoms  could  only  have  been  simulated  by  the  pro- 
duction of  intense  pain,  intense  suffering  to  the  person  to  whom  they 
were  administering  it;  and  is  it  conceivable  that  those  two  people  could 
have  calmly  sat  down  together  to  administer  poison  in  small  doses  to 
this  woman,  causing  all  this  intense  agony,  from  1st  September  up  to 
13th  September,  when  she  died?  My  learned  friend  is  driven  to  it.  He 
cannot  help  himself  by  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  My  learned  friend 
asks  the  doctor — "  It  might  have  been  that  the  poison  had  been  ad- 
ministered from  1st  September,"  and  you  are  asked  to  find,  not  only 
that  they  are  murderers,  but  murderers  so  cruel  that  they  would  have 
administered  this  poison  in  doses  for  a  long  period  of  time,  causing  this 
awful  agony  and  suffering  to  this  victim  of  their  evil  design. 

All  these  assumptions  are  to  be  drawn  against  these  two  people 
because  of  two  things.  First  of  all,  because  the  male  prisoner  benefits 
by  the  death  of  the  deceased  in  that  the  annuity  ceases,  and  secondly, 
there  is  the  suggestion — and  here  I  submit  that  there  is  no  evidence  at 
all  worthy  of  your  consideration — that  Miss  Barrow  was  in  possession  of 
286 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

a  large  sum  of  money  at  the  time  of  her  death,  and  that  they  murdered 
her  in  order  to  obtain  possession  of  it.  I  am  not  dealing  with  Mrs. 
Seddon  in  this  case,  but  I  cannot  help  commenting  on  that  for  a  moment. 
I  am  not  dealing  with  it  one  way  or  the  other;  I  am  merely  dealing 
with  the  fact  which  is  proved.  It  is  suggested  by  the  prosecution  that 
Mrs.  Seddon  wrongfully  got  possession  of  these  notes,  amounting  to 
something  like  £105,  which  she  cashed,  and  the  notes  that  were  dealt 
with  by  the  husband,  £165  in  all  in  notes,  were  wrongly  dealt  with  by 
him.  According  to  the  prosecution,  all  those  notes  were  obtained  and 
dealt  with  in  the  lifetime  of  this  woman.  What  need  was  there  to  kill 
her?  Put  it  as  a  proposition  on  the  very  lowest  possible  level.  What 
need  was  there  to  kill  her  if  they  had  so  successfully  got  from  her  in  her 
lifetime,  the  Crown  suggests  wrongfully,  this  large  sum  of  money?  On 
the  contrary,  if  it  is  so  easy  to  get  this  money  from  her,  there  is  no 
complaint.  One  of  the  last  things  we  hear  she  said  to  the  doctor  when 
he  suggested  her  going  to  the  hospital  was,  "Oh,  no;  the  Seddons  will 
look  after  me  better."  The  boy  said  that  he  was  happier  at  the 
Seddons'  than  he  ever  was  when  he  was  at  the  Vonderahes'.  It  is  sug- 
gested that  these  people  murdered  this  woman  for  gold,  or  for  notes, 
whatever  it  is  alleged  she  had  in  her  possession  at  the  time  of  her  death, 
and  that  they  robbed  her  after  death. 

Let  me  deal  with  the  annuity  for  a  moment.  It  is  not  suggested 
even  by  the  Crown  that  there  was  anything  wrong  or  fraudulent  in  that 
annuity.  We  know  that  Miss  Barrow  was  a  keen  woman  of  business: 
we  know  she  was  "  a  hard  nut  to  crack,"  to  use  the  colloquial  expression 
that  has  been  used.  We  know  she  fully  understood  and  approved  of 
the  business  transaction.  To  put  the  question  whether  she  fully  and 
entirely  approved  of  this  annuity  transaction  beyond  all  possible  doubt, 
you  have  only  to  refer  to  the  letters  which  are  in  existence  written  by 
Miss  Barrow,  which  show  conclusively  that  she  not  only  knew  of  it,  but 
that  she  approved  of  it,  and  thoroughly  and  entirely  understood  it. 
Although  comment  may  be  made  that  Mr.  Seddon  as  an  insurance  agent 
has  told  you  that  he  did  not  look  upon  her  as  a  very  good  life,  it  may  be 
you  will  not  like  a  man  striking  what  would  be  a  good  bargain  for  him- 
self under  the  circumstances,  but,  after  all,  it  does  not  follow  that  because 
a  man  thinks  that  it  is  a  good  investment  to  make  from  his  point  of 
view,  because  he  does  not  think  that  the  annuitant  is  going  to  live  the 
number  of  years  which  upon  the  table  is  computed  to  be  her  expectation 
of  life — you  are  not  going  to  say  that  a  man  is  a  murderer  because  he 
makes  a  bargain  which  he  thinks  an  advantageous  bargain,  and  she 
wished  him  to  make  it,  approved  of  and  carried  out  by  the  formula  required 
by  the  stockbrokers  and  the  Bank  of  England.  She  is  absolutely  in  one 
transaction  represented  by  solicitors.  I  will  only  trouble  you  with  one 
letter.  Look  at  her  letter  of  4th  January,  1911.  I  do  want  you  to 
realise  this.  This  letter  of  4th  January,  1911,  was  written  when 
the  whole  matter  has  been  through  the  solicitors'  hands,  and  when  she 
has  disposed  of  her  India  stock. 

I  do  not  want  to  take  up  too  much  of  your  time  ;  it  will  take  hours  if 
I  detail  all  the  points  ;  and  I  do  not  want  to  detail  them,  because  it  is  not 
necessary ;  but  I  will  just  take  a  summary  of  them,  and  my  learned  friend 

287 


Trial   of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


will  correct  me  if  I  am  wrong.  You  will  remember  all  the  formalities  that 
had  to  be  gone  through  with  regard  to  the  transfer  of  this  stock.  She 
wrote  to  the  savings  bank,  where  she  was  known.  She  asked  for  some- 
body to  accompany  her  to  identify  her.  She  is  introduced  to  the  stock- 
brokers. She  is  taken  by  the  stockbrokers  to  the  Bank  of  England. 
She  signs  the  transfer  in  the  presence  of  the  stockbroker,  and  the  stock 
is  transferred.  Then  comes  the  transaction  with  regard  to  the  Buck's  Head. 
First  of  all,  some  attempts  are  made  to  deal  with  it  without  solicitors, 
an  inoperative  document  is  drawn  up  which  is  destroyed,  and  that  is  raked 
up  here,  I  do  not  know  why — I  do  not  know  what  it  has  got  to  do  with 
the  case.  It  is  raked  up  in  order  to  make  some  suggestion  or  other,  I 
suppose ;  but  still  the  document  was  absolutely  inoperative,  and  was  de- 
stroyed. Later  on  she  was  told  she  must  consult  a  solicitor.  A 
separate  solicitor  is  instructed  on  her  behalf,  and  a  separate  solicitor 
appears  for  her  and  advises  her.  After  all  this  is  done,  the  climax  of 
it  is  on  4th  January,  1911,  when  she  writes  this  letter.  I  will  read  every 
word  of  it  to  you — "  Ee  the  Buck's  Head  public-house,  202  High  Street, 
N.W.,  and  the  hairdresser's  shop  adjoining,  No.  1  Buck  Street,  N.W. — 
Mr.  Keeble,  Messrs.  Kussell  &  Sons,  solicitors,  59  Coleman  Street,  E.G. — 
Dear  Sir, — I  regret  I  was  unable  to  call  upon  you  to-day  with  Mr.  Seddon 
as  requested  by  your  letter  to  him  of  the  3rd  instant.  However,  I  under- 
stand from  him  that  you  are  preparing  a  deed  of  conveyance  of  these 
properties  to  Mr.  Frederick  Henry  Seddon  entitling  him  to  receive  rents 
and  take  over  liabilities  and  responsibilities  from  Quarter  Day,  25th 
December  last,  in  consideration  of  a  life  annuity  of  £52  per  annum  pay- 
able to  me  by  him.  These  arrangements  I  am  quite  agreeable  to,  and 
will  arrange  to  be  at  home  between  3  and  4  p.m.  on  Friday  next  to  meet 
you  to  sign  the  deed  of  conveyance. — Yours  faithfully,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow." 
There  is  no  suggestion  that  that  letter  is  anything  but  a  perfectly  honest 
and  straightforward  letter,  and  that  letter  is  written  from  beginning  to 
end  in  her  own  handwriting.  I  think  the  address,  "  63  Tollington  Park," 
is  a  printed  address,  but  with  that  exception  the  whole  of  that  letter  is 
a  letter  written  by  this  woman.  This  woman  was  a  shrewd  woman,  a 
business  woman,  and  "  a  hard  nut  to  crack,"  yet  there  she  is  by  that 
letter  of  4th  January  divesting  herself  of  practically  the  biggest  items  of 
property  she  possesses.  I  do  not  know  why  we  should  not  draw  some 
assumption  in  the  man's  favour.  Everything  is  presumed  to  be  in  favour 
of  an  accused  person.  It  may  be  that  she  realised  the  great  business 
capacity  of  that  man;  it  may  be  she  realised,  "  Here  is  a  man  who  has 
made  his  way  in  his  own  profession,  who  has  climbed  up  from  the  lowest 
beginning  to  one  of  the  highest  positions  that  an  insurance  company  can 
offer  him,  and  he  is  a  shrewd  man  of  business,"  and  she  trusts  him 
absolutely,  as  demonstrated.  Do  not  get  away  from  this — do  let  us 
remember  this.  Let  us  go  back  to  the  time  before  any  question  of  the  taint 
of  murder  arose.  On  4th  January  she  trusts  this  man  implicitly.  She 
has  handed  over  to  him  this  stock  without  any  security  except  a  memo- 
i*andjum  which  he  gave  her,  saying  he  was  going  to  give  her  £72  per 
annum — a  document  which  is  lost.  With  the  exception  of  that 
memorandum  in  the  month  of  October,  when  she  executed  a  transfer  to 
him  of  the  East  India  stock,  by  which  he  acknowledged  to  give  her  £72 
288 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  ot   F.  H.    Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

per  annum  for  her  life,  she  had  no  sort  of  security  of  any  sort  or  shape 
for  this  £1519,  which  was  the  net  proceeds  of  this  particular  stock. 

Gentlemen,  do  consider  this  for  a  moment.  This  man  who  is  now 
called  a  thief,  a  perjurer,  and  a  murderer,  and  everything  else  that  the 
law  can  call  him,  or  suggest  that  he  is,  in  the  month  of  October  is  getting 
possession  of  this  stock,  which  he  could  the  next  day  if  he  so  pleased  (he 
has  got  the  transfer,  and  it  is  absolutely  in  his  own  name)  have  sold  and 
done  whatever  he  liked  with  the  money.  He  might  have  taken  it  and 
thrown  it  into  the  Thames  for  all  the  law  could  interfere  with  him.  Yet 
what  does  he  do?  He  never  deals  with  the  transfer  at  all.  He  never 
begins  to  realise  the  money  until  after  the  whole  arrangement  is  complete, 
when  the  lawyers  have  completed  the  transfer  of  the  Buck's  Head,  and 
the  whole  question  of  the  annuity  has  been  finally  and  definitely  settled. 
The  annuity  becomes  payable  in  advance  in  the  month  of  January,  and 
he  regularly  paid  it  for  every  month  of  that  year.  His  receipts  prove 
that.  It  is  only  then  that  he  deals  with  this  stock.  How  does  he  deal 
with  it?  Does  he  deal  with  it  like  a  thief  or  a  dishonest  man?  How 
does  he  deal  with  it?  He  acts  as  a  competent,  shrewd,  sharp  man  of 
business.  He  says,  "  Here  is  an  investment  which  has  depreciated 
largely."  Miss  Barrow  was  worried  about  it.  She  told  him  that  it 
had  cost — and  we  know  it  had  cost — £1720,  and  it  sold  for  £1519,  and 
therefore  £200  of  her  money  absolutely  ran  away  in  the  few  years  she 
held  that  stock ;  £200  of  her  capital  has  gone.  She  is  alarmed.  The 
whole  world  was  alarmed  about  that  time.  Anybody  holding  stocks, 
shares,  and  securities  on  land  of  any  sort  or  shape  was  alarmed.  Is 
there  a  man  in  this  country  who  has  not  been  alarmed  during  the  past  two 
years  with  regard  to  the  security  of  his  tenure  and  the  price  of  Consols? 
Is  there  any  man  or  woman  who  has  not  been  properly  alarmed  as  to  the 
financial  condition  of  this  country?  This  woman  is  alarmed.  She  has 
seen  £200  of  her  money  run  away.  She  has  only  got  3£  per  cent.  ;  she 
bought  for  lOSfths,  and  therefore  she  is  only  getting  that.  She  has 
seen  her  capital  running  away,  and  therefore  she  is  naturally  anxious, 
and  seeing  that  this  man  is  a  shrewd  man  she  hands  it  over  to  him. 
What  does  he  do  with  it?  He  absolutely  invests  it  in  the  purchase  of 
leasehold  property  bringing  in  a  large  yearly  rental,  so  that  out  of  that  he 
can  make  perfectly  certain  of  being  able  to  pay  Miss  Barrow  the  annuity 
which  he  has  covenanted  to  pay,  and  which  will  have  to  be  paid  if  he 
dies  and  she  survives  him,  and  which  will  also  provide  the  sinking  fund 
whereby  he  can  at  the  end  of  the  time  reinstate  the  value  of  those 
leaseholds  when  they  have  expired  and  run  out.  You  cannot  attack 
these  transactions.  They  may  have  been  foolish  on  the  part  of  the 
lady.  You  may  think  it  was  foolish  of  her  not  to  go  to  the  Post  Office 
or  to  an  insurance  company  and  buy  Government  annuities  or  insurance 
office  annuities.  If  you  go  to  an  insurance  office  to-morrow  and  want 
to  insure  your  life  they  would  look  at  you,  and  say,  "You  are  a  very 
bad  life,  and  we  will  put  you  into  the  fourth  or  fifth  class,  and  charge 
you  double  or  treble  premiums."  But  if  you  go  the  next  morning  and 
say,  "  I  want  to  buy  an  annuity,"  you  have  to  buy  the  annuity  at  the 
biggest  rate.  It  may  be  that  this  man  did  that  with  this  woman,  and 
thought  that  if  he  could  get  this  investment  it  was  a  good  investment. 
T  289 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

HP.  Marshall  Hall 

He  is  a  north  countryman,  a  thorough  man  of  business,  and  not  a  man 
of  sentiment.  I  am  not  asking  for  any  sentimental  pity,  or  anything  of 
that  kind.  This  man  may  have  thought  this  was  a  good  investment, 
and  she  may  have  thought  the  same  for  two  reasons.  First  of  all,  the 
insurance  office  or  the  Post  Office  only  pay  after  a  period  of  six  months, 
and  she  wanted  her  money  at  once ;  and,  secondly,  if  she  was  paid  it  weekly 
she  only  got  her  first  payment  at  the  end  of  six  months,  and  there  would 
be  six  months  without  any  interest  at  all.  In  addition  to  that,  she  got 
£26  more  over  and  above  what  she  would  get  from  the  Post  Office  or 
insurance  office,  because  their  rates  are  practically  identical.  Yet  it  is 
because  of  this  transaction  this  prosecution  must  have  been  originally 
launched.  The  Crown  says,  "  Here  is  a  man  who  is  granting  an  annuity 
to  a  woman  in  return  for  cash  which  she  has  paid  him,  and  she  dies 
within  twelve  months.  The  presumption  is  that  he  murdered  her  because 
he  was  interested  in  avoiding  the  payment  of  the  annuity  for  the  rest  of 
her  natural  life.  Upon  her  death  this  man  benefits  to  the  extent  of 
£2000."  He  does  nothing  of  the  kind.  Supposing  this  woman  con- 
tinued to  live  in  this  house.  It  is  a  large  house,  and  it  pleased 
her.  She  was  to  have  had  the  rooms  rent  free.  She  would  have  had 
to  pay  some  7s.  a  week  for  the  girl  for  her  work.  There  would  also  have 
been  the  boy's  keep,  amounting  to  13s.  a  week  if  she  died — 13s.  for  the 
boy  and  7s.  for  Maggie  makes  20s.  All  he  had  to  pay  her  was  £2  8s. 
a  week;  so  the  total  benefit  to  this  man  upon  her  death  was  £1  8s.  a 
week.  People  do  not  commit  murders  for  £1  8s.  a  week.  You  have  got 
to  consider  what  this  man  is.  Here  is  a  man  of  unblemished  character. 
If  there  is  anything  sure  about  this  case  it  is  the  fact  that  he  is  a  man 
of  unblemished  character.  There  is  nothing  whatever  against  him.  He 
has  been  successful  in  his  business.  He  has  won  the  admiration  of  the 
people  for  whom  he  worked,  and  he  is  put  into  one  of  the  finest  positions 
which  they  have  to  offer.  He  has  been  twenty-one  years  in  the  same 
employ,  and  he  is  getting  seven  guineas  a  week  by  way  of  salary  and 
commission.  He  is  a  man  who  for  his  class  of  life  is  well  to  do.  He 
has  got  some  money  put  by ;  he  has  got  some  Cardiff  stock. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — £5  10s.,  not  seven  guineas. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKXILL — £5  6s. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — £5  15s.,  my  lord,  and  then  there  were  some 
other  matters.  He  was  drawing  interest  from  his  stock,  and  he  has 
got  other  property.  He  is  practically  living  rent  free.  He  has  made 
his  will.  From  one  interest  and  another  we  will  say  that  he  was  getting 
over  £6  a  week — £300  a  year.  For  a  man  in  that  position  that  is  a 
very  good  and  substantial  income.  There  are  instances  on  record  where 
people  have  been  murdered  for  coppers.  It  cannot  be  suggested  that  a 
man  in  that  position  is  going  to  murder  a  woman  with  all  the  attendant 
risks  for  £1  8s.  a  week.  That  is  the  assumption.  Is  it  a  more  violent 
assumption  than  all  these  eight  assumptions  against  him,  or  the  assump- 
tion I  submit  to  you,  that  he  did  not  murder  her,  and  that  he  had  no 
real  and  sufficient  motive  to  murder  her?  Look  at  Miss  Barrow.  We 
know  perfectly  well  that  she  was  a  difficult  woman  to  deal  with  on  the 
question  of  business.  That  is  what  we  are  told ;  yet  we  know  perfectly 
well  that  she  did  deal  with  him,  and  she  dealt  with  him  in  the  way  which 
290 


Closing  Speech  on   behalf  of  F.  H.   Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

her  own  letters  indicate,  and  which  the  documents  in  existence  corroborate 
up  to  the  hilt. 

Let  us  now  take  the  facts  in  chronological  order  so  far  as  they  are 
material  in  this  case.  The  first  date  that  I  refer  to  is  a  date  towards  the 
end  of  1909.  Mr.  Seddon,  who  has  on  his  wife's  behalf  financed  a  wardrobe 
business  in  Seven  Sisters  Road,  is  doing  quite  a  good  turnover,  because, 
so  far  as  they  are  available,  the  books  corroborate  it.  The  books  are  at 
your  disposal,  and  you  can  see  them  for  yourselves.  Out  of  an  investment  of 
something  like  £40  he  makes  100  per  cent,  in  the  course  of  eight  weeks. 
He  has  some  money  which  he  has  put  into  the  business  to  finance  it,  and 
he  has  made  this  profit.  Then  comes  this  trouble.  You  have  heard  it 
again  this  morning ;  I  was  going  to  allude  to  it,  of  course.  In  the  month 
of  November  there  was  some  trouble  with  regard  to  business  matters 
between  himself  and  his  wife,  which,  unfortunately,  culminated  in  a  quarrel, 
and  eventually  in  a  separation.  On  6th  January  she  leaves  him  for  a  period 
of  five  weeks,  and,  as  he  said,  "  I  tore  up  the  books;  I  was  angry;  I  thought 
of  putting  them  at  the  back  of  the  fire ;  I  did  not  put  them  at  the  back  of 
the  fire;  I  left  them  in  the  house."  When  Inspector  Ward  came  to  examine 
the  house  he  saw  them,  and  he  could  have  made  any  comments  on  them, 
which  he  did  not;  therefore  we  are  entitled  to  assume  that  those  books, 
as  far  as  they  are  not  in  any  way  impeached  by  the  prosecution,  are  correct. 
Was  that  all?  Are  you  going  to  entirely  disregard  the  evidence  here?  I 
do  not  think,  as  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  cross-examination,  that  you 
are  asked  to  disbelieve  either  Naylor,  or  Wilson,  or  Wainwright,  but  if 
Naylor,  Wilson,  and  Wainwright  are  right  in  the  month  of  November,  or 
October,  1909 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — July,   1909. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — It  was  in  the  middle  of  1909 — some  time  in 
1909 — he  had  in  his  possession  a  bag  containing  a  very  considerable  amount 
of  gold,  put  at  something  between  £130  and  £150 — sworn  to  by  one  of 
these  men,  who  is  a  man  of  business,  another  who  is  a  man  in  trade,  and 
another  a  Post  Office  employee — all  people  of  position,  presumed  to  be 
respectable  men  whose  characters  are  unimpeachable.  They  swear 
positively  to  Mr.  Seddon  having  possession  of  this  money  on  the  night 
they  saw  it.  There  is  a  slight  discrepancy  as  to  whether  Seddon  did  or 
did  not  say  he  had  £200,  but  Seddon  said,  "  If  I  did,  all  I  said  was  '  Here 
is  a  couple  of  hundred  pounds.  If  you  know  of  any  wardrobe  stock  going, 
I  have  a  couple  of  hundred  pounds  to  buy  it  with.'  "  Mr.  Seddon  said,  "  If 
I  did  say  it,  it  would  not  have  been  strictly  true;  I  had  not  got  a  couple 
of  hundred  pounds,  but  I  had  £150."  He  sold  the  business  for  £30.  That 
is  not  challenged.  He  "  gave  it  away,"  to  use  his  own  expression.  That 
brings  it  up  to  £180.  Mr.  Wainwright,  who  is  obviously  a  respectable 
man,  a  man  of  position,  a  man  who  had  got  a  business,  and  a  man  who  it 
cannot  be  suggested  had  any  motive  or  interest  in  this  case,  comes  along 
and  tells  you  a  very  substantial  story  indeed.  What  is  it?  He  said,  "I 
advised  Seddon  to  buy  some  property,  to  buy  this  house  at  63  Tollington 
Park.  The  price  was  rather  more  than  he  wanted  to  give,  but  I  eventually 
got  the  vendor  down  to  £320."  There  was  a  deposit  to  be  paid.  The 
deposit  was  £30,  10  per  cent.,  but  Seddon,  who  was  no  fool,  pointed  out 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  forfeiture  clause,  and  he  did  not  like  the  for- 

291 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

feiture  clause  in  the  lease,  and  therefore  he  said,  "  I  will  not  pay  you 
£30,  I  will  only  give  you  half  that  deposit."  Then  Mr.  Wainwright 
properly  observed,  "  I  could  not  get  over  the  forfeiture  clause.  There  it 
was,  and  Mr.  Seddon  was  perfectly  right.  I  said,  '  Very  well,  let  us  make 
it  £15  instead  of  £30.'  He  agreed  to  take  that,  and  he  produced 
£15  in  gold  out  of  a  bag  containing  a  large  sum  of  gold.  I  said,  '  I  do 
not  want  gold.  .  Give  me  a  cheque.'  I  thought  he  was  a  man  of  substance 
and  position,  and  I  was  perfectly  prepared  to  take  his  cheque.  He  said, 
'  If  you  don't  mind  I  don't,'  and  he  gave  me  a  cheque."  Then  this  gentle- 
man, who,  I  suppose,  was  not  altogether  disinterested  (I  do  not  believe 
many  actions  in  this  world  are  purely  disinterested  actions;  they  are  very 
rare)  gave  him  the  advice  which  meant  a  little  business  to  himself.  Seddon 
said,  "  I  have  got  enough  money  to  pay  for  this  house,  £320  " ;  but  Mr. 
Wainwright  said,  ' '  Do  not  pay  for  it ;  it  is  a  very  good  time  to  buy 
house  property;  there  is  a  great  slump  in  house  property  at  this  time; 
the  Budget  has  just  come  through,  and  people  are  frightened  about  house 
property.  Now  is  the  time.  Do  not  get  rid  of  your  ready  money."  You 
cannot  buy  house  property  unless  you  put  down  some  ready  money,  as  you 
know.  The  more  you  leave  on  mortgage  the  more  ready  money  you  will 
have  to  distribute  over  a  series  of  properties.  He  said,  "  Get  a  mortgage 
for  the  £220."  "Well,"  says  Seddon,  "it  is  rather  a  good  idea.  If  you 
have  got  any  more  property  you  might  let  me  know,  and  I  will  find  the 
money  to  buy  it  and  get  mortgages.''  If  property  is  going  up,  he  stands  to 
win.  I  do  not  say  it  offensively,  but  I  suggest  to  you  that  no  doubt  Mr. 
Wainwright  would  get  some  small  fee  or  commission.  It  is  his  business  to 
sell  properties,  and  therefore  he  would  get  commission.  I  am  told  the 
date  is  3rd  September,  1909. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — "  On  3rd  September  I  called  on  Seddon." 
Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Yes,  3rd  September,  1909.  On  3rd  September 
we  get  this  man  with  enough  money  in  the  house  to  pay  in  cash  for  this 
house,  which  has  cost  him  £320,  and  we  know  also  that  he  had  at  any  rate 
£300  of  Cardiff  stock  after  he  had  taken  out  the  actual  £100  which  he 
took  out  for  the  purpose  of  eventually  paying  the  purchase  price  of  the 
house,  less  the  mortgage.  You  are  not  to  strain  points  against  this  man. 
That  is  not  what  you  are  here  for.  We  are  none  of  us  here  to  strain  points 
against  him.  We  have  got  to  take  everything  in  his  favour.  Here  we  have 
independent  evidence,  before  any  question  of  motive  or  shady  transactions 
arises,  the  specific  statements  of  three  creditable  witnesses,  that  this  man 
was  possessed  of  something  like  £200  in  gold  at  the  end  of  the  year 
1909.  What  does  he  tell  you?  I  do  want  you  to  give  your  careful  attention 
to  this.  He  said,  "I  accepted  the  position;  I  agreed;  and  I  thought  of 
buying  other  property.  Mr.  Wainwright  submitted  other  properties  to  me, 
but  I  did  not  care  for  them,  and  therefore  I  did  not  accept  them,  but  I 
was  eventually  compelled  to  take  possession  of  63  Tollington  Park.  I  had 
originally  bought  it  to  let  it.  I  advertised  for  a  tenant.  I  could  not 
get  a  tenant,  and,  not  having  got  a  tenant,  I  could  not  afford  to  let  that 
money  lie  idle  and  pay  two  rents,  as  I  was  paying  rent  in  Seven  Sisters 
Road,  so  I  lived  at  63  Tollington  Park,  and  saved  money  by  so  doing." 
As  you  see,  it  is  admitted  he  was  allowed  to  charge  a  certain  proportion 
of  the  rental  value  of  63  Tollington  Park  for  the  office  premises  in  the 
292 


Closing  Speech    on  behalf  of  F.   H,    Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

basement  which  he  used  for  the  company,  so  that  was  a  very  advantageous 
business  for  him.  The  basement  pays  itself,  because  it  goes  qua  rent, 
but  he  also  lets  the  other  part  of  the  house,  not  to  Miss  Barrow,  but  some 
person  before.  The  man  is  in  a  very  good  position.  He  is  drawing  money 
from  the  insurance  company,  he  has  got  interest  on  the  balance  of  the 
Cardiff  stock,  he  has  got  money  in  the  savings  bank,  and  he  has  got  this 
£200  in  gold.  We  cannot  judge  of  a  man  by  the  highly-trained  intellects 
•which  some  possess.  We  have  got  to  deal  with  this  man  in  his  own  way 
of  looking  at  life,  and  the  way  he  looked  at  his  position  was  this,  "  I  am 
earning  £5  15s.  a  week.  I  have  got  a  little  money  coming  in  from  the 
Cardiff  stock.  I  have  got  a  certain  amount  of  ready  money  in  hand,  some 
portion  of  which  I  am  using  for  trading  purposes  in  the  wardrobe 
business,  and  if  an  opportunity  turns  up  I  can  make  a  bargain  with  it ; 
but  that  is  all  very  well  when  I  am  alive.  Suppose  something  happens  to 
me,  my  wife  has  got  five  children,  amongst  whom  is  a  little  baby.  She 
has  to  be  considered.  If  I  die  my  wife  will  be  in  this  position.  She  will 
have  this  house  mortgaged  to  the  tune  of  £120,  and  she  will  either  have 
to  pay  interest  on  that  mortgage  or  there  may  be  a  clause  that  on  the 
death  of  the  mortgagor  the  mortgage  could  be  called  in."  Apparently, 
so  long  as  he  lived,  the  mortgage  could  not  be  called  in  within  a  certain 
number  of  years,  but  we  do  not  know  whether  in  the  event  of  his  death 
the  mortgage  might  not  at  once  be  called  in,  because  every  mortgage  con- 
tains a  personal  covenant,  and  the  personal  covenant  in  this  mortgage  is 
of  considerable  value  (the  man  is  earning  £5  15s.  a  week),  which  becomes 
valueless  when  the  person  dies.  The  legal  personal  representative  of  Mr. 
Seddon  would,  of  course,  have  only  had  the  house  and  the  balance  of  the 
few  hundreds.  Therefore  he  says  this,  "  I  did  not  want  my  wife  to  be 
in  that  position,  so  I  will  put  £200  in  the  house."  He  has  got  two  safes: 
he  has  a  second  safe  which  he  has  brought  there.  He  used  the  two.  He 
puts  £100  in  one  safe  and  £120  in  the  other  safe,  and  he  says,  "  I  put 
•that  there  as  a  provision  against  my  death,  and  my  wife  suddenly  being 
called  upon  either  to  pay  off  the  mortgage  or  to  part  possession  of  the 
house."  My  learned  friend,  with  that  knowledge  of  finance  which  most  of 
us  possess  in  a  minor  or  lesser  degree,  points  out,  why  not  put  it  into  the 
savings  bank  and  get  2£  per  cent.  ?  How  long  would  it  take  the  wife  to 
get  it  as  the  legal  personal  representative?  I  do  not  know.  There  is  no 
•evidence  of  it.  You  can  only  use  your  own  knowledge  on  the  subject. 
Seddon  says,  "That  was  not  good  enough  for  me.  I  wanted  it  absolutely 
available  for  my  wife."  Do  you  disbelieve  him?  Why  should  you?  You 
-have  had  positive  evidence  that  at  the  end  of  1909  he  had  close  upon  £300 
•in  the  house.  I  suggest  to  you  that  you  have  indisputable  evidence,  which 
you  cannot  attack,  that  he  certainly  had  £200  in  the  month  of  November, 
1909,  in  gold,  which  was  all  available.  Gentlemen,  he  has  got  this  money 
;in  the  house  in  gold.  There  is  his  position. 

Now,  he  loses  his  tenant,  and  Miss  Barrow  comes  along.  We  know 
very  little  about  her.  We  do  know  that  she  was  a  woman  of  queer  temper. 
'One  of  the  Vonderahes  said  that  she  spat  in  her  face.  Another  one  said 
-•that  she  was  very  irritable.  Another  one  said  she  was  "  a  '  hard  nut  '  to  crack 
•on  the  question  of  money."  On  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Francis  we  know  that 
she  was  a  woman  of  curious  temperament.  From  any  point  of  view  she, 

293 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

had  curious  habits  with  regard  to  money.  We  know  she  did  have  £165  in 
notes.  That  is  in  evidence.  She  also  had  a  deposit  account  at  the  savings 
bank.  When  she  on  19th  June,  1911,  goes  to  the  savings  bank  she  draws 
out  £216  in  gold,  and  will  not  take  it  in  notes.  We  do  know  from  Dr. 
Francis  that  up  to  some  time  in  March,  1909,  she  had  been  over-indulging 
in  strong  alcohol,  and  had  severe  attacks  of  gastritis,  from  which,  I 
suggest  to  you,  she  eventually  died.  She  had  attacks  of  gastritis,  which 
is  inflammation  of  the  gastric  region,  brought  on  by  the  abuse  of  strong 
intoxicants,  and  that  would  predispose  her  to  be  more  susceptible  to  an 
attack  of  gastrp-enteritis  when  gastro-enteritis  in  fact  came  on;  I  do  not 
put  it  higher  than  that. 

There  is  a  little  more  we  know  about  her.  She  at  first  lived  with  some 
people  named  Grant,  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Grant  had  both  died,  and  had  left 
two  children  entirely  unprovided  for.  Mr.  Hook  was  the  brother  of 
Mrs.  Grant,  and  he  admitted  that  Mrs.  Grant  was  also  an  alcoholic  sub- 
ject who  had  drunk  to  excess,  and,  in  fact,  that  was  more  or  less  the 
cause  of  her  death.  We  know,  as  it  very  often  happens,  when  the  evil 
influence  of  Mrs.  Grant  was  removed,  possibly  Miss  Barrow  resumed  her 
normal  condition.  It  is  common  knowledge,  and  everybody  knows,  that 
one  person  will  often  incite  and  encourage  another  person  to  drink.  Any- 
how, Miss  Barrow  came  as  tenant  with  the  boy  Ernie  Grant.  We  can 
realise  her  taking  a  fancy  to  this  child,  because  he  was  the  child  of  these 
unfortunate  people,  the  two  Grants.  She  brought  with  her  the  two 
people  named  Hook.  As  to  Hook,  we  know  nothing  except  what  he  has 
told  us.  He  was  a  man  of  no  means  at  all,  and  he  was  entirely  de- 
pendent upon  Miss  Barrow  for  his  living,  and  it  was  a  matter  of  vital 
importance  that  he  should  live  rent  free  and  be  provided  for  at  her  ex- 
pense. Anyhow,  Miss  Barrow  does  provide  for  them,  and  brings  the 
husband  and  wife  to  the  Seddon's  house.  The  only  return  for  this 
living  rent  and  board  free  is  that  Mrs.  Hook  is  to  teach  Miss  Barrow  how 
to  cook.  This  is  Hook's  story.  I  am  not  putting  him  forward  as  a 
witness  of  credibility,  and  I  should  have  thought  that  the  same  reason 
which  operated  upon  the  prosecution  not  calling  Margaret  Seddon  would 
have  also  operated  upon  them  not  to  call  a  man  of  Hook's  class.  The 
class  of  man  Hook  is  does  not  depend  upon  hearsay  evidence.  You  heard 
the  class  of  man  he  was  when  he  tried  to  quibble  with  me  when  I  slipped 
out  "  Mrs.  Barrow  "  instead  of  "  Miss  Barrow  "  in  the  question.  He 
said,  "  No,  obviously  untrue,"  and  when  I  said  that  I  meant  "  Miss 
Barrow."  he  said,  "Oh,  yes,  Miss  Barrow."  That  is  the  sort  of  man 
you  have  got  to  deal  with.  You  remember  the  avidity  with  which  he 
recognised  a  watch  which  had  been  absolutely  altered.  This  woman's 
watch  had  had  a  cracked  white  face,  but  he  instantly  recognised  it  with 
the  gold  face.  Then  he  said  he  did  not  look  at  the  face ;  he  did  not 
turn  it  over ;  and  then  he  reluctantly  told  you  he  did  look  at  the  face. 
I  submit  to  you  that  he  is  an  absolutely  unreliable  witness.  We  have 
not  got  much  to  test  him  on.  We  have  not  got  the  Treasury  funds  at 
our  back.  We  cannot  employ  all  the  scientists  and  analysts  to  come 
and  give  evidence  upon  scientific  matters.  We  cannot  employ  detectives 
to  watch  who  comes  to  buy  fly-papers.  We  have  got  to  do  what  we  can 
under  the  conditions  which  exist,  and  therefore  we  have  no  opportunity  of 
294 


Closing  Speech  on   behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

tracing  Mr.  Hook's  career  backwards  to  its  early  stage.  It  may  be  if  we 
could  we  would  find  out  something  to  Mr.  Hook's  discredit.  Anyhow,  we 
have  not.  There  is  nothing  to  know,  but  we  have  got  to  know  that 
wherever  he  is  met  he  has  been  contradicted.  Upon  his  evidence  depends 
this  preposterous  statement  that  this  woman  had  £380,  besides  a  bundle 
of  notes,  in  a  little  tin  cash  box,  when  she  came  to  this  house  in  July, 
1910.  He  is  very  positive  in  his  evidence;  he  says,  "  I  helped  to  move. 
Creek  helped  me.  I  carried  that  box  in  a  bag  in  my  hand  at  5  o'clock 
when  I  delivered  it  to  her.  We  never  had  a  drink.  We  never  stopped 
and  had  a  drink.  There  was  no  public-house  on  the  way.  The  cart 
was  never  stopped."  I  had  him  back,  and  asked  him,  "  Did  you  have  a 
drink  before  you  started,  or  at  the  moment  of  starting?  "  and  he  said, 
"  No,  we  never  had  a  drink.  Miss  Barrow  never  held  the  horse's  head." 
Creek  is  called.  He  is  a  perfectly  respectable  man.  He  may  not  be 
a  rich  man,  and  he  may  not  have  the  position  that  some  other  people 
have,  but  he  is  an  honest,  hard-working  man  at  his  particular  trade.  He 
says  that  this  was  the  only  afternoon  on  which  he  ever  remembers  moving 
anybody  from  Evershot  Road  to  Tollington  Park,  and  that  that  took 
place  between  12  and  3,  and  the  moving  was  all  over  at  3.  "I  swear 
that  Hook  never  had  anything  in  his  hand.  He  never  carried  a  bag  in 
hia  hand,"  and,  more  than  that,  he  says,  "  I  am  perfectly  positive  that 
we  did  have  a  drink  while  Miss  Barrow  held  the  horse's  head." 

I  submit  to  you,  Hook  is  lying,  and  yet  you  are  asked  to  believe 
Hook  upon  the  vital  question  as  to  whether  this  lady  had  £400  in  gold 
and  a  bundle  of  notes,  which  she  took  into  that  house.  It  is  a  very  small 
matter,  but  on  the  point  of  time,  you  will  remember  Mrs.  Vonderahe 
corroborated  what  Creek  said.  She  said  that  it  was  all  over  at  3  o'clock 
at  the  latest,  yet,  when  I  put  it  to  Hook,  he  persisted  in  5  o'clock;  I 
gave  him  12  to  3,  but  he  persisted  in  his  5  o'clock.  He  had  come  to 
tell  one  story,  and  he  did  not  mean  to  alter  it.  Whether  it  was  true  or 
not  was  a  matter,  I  submit  to  you,  of  absolute  indifference  to  him.  He 
told  his  story.  He  had  not  been  heard  of  for  some  time,  and  he  came 
upon  the  scene,  and  he  was  going  to  tell  his  story  for  what  it  was  worth. 
It  may  be  that  his  memory  was  entirely  faulty,  but  if  it  were  faulty  upon 
one  subject  it  would  be  faulty  upon  another,  I  suggest  to  you. 

What  happens  when  he  gets  into  the  house?  It  is  to  Hook's  interest 
to  stop;  he  admits  that.  What  happens?  Well,  gentlemen,  as  I  say, 
we  have  not  got  the  actual  letter  that  Miss  Barrow  wrote  to  him,  but 
he  admits  that  it  was  very  much  in  this  form — "  Mr.  Hook,  as  you  and 
your  wife  have  treated  me  so  badly,  I  must  now  inform  you  of  my  inten- 
tion to  part  with  you.  I  wish  you  to  leave  my  rooms  at  once,  and  I 
desire  to  remain  here  without  you  and  your  wife. — Yours,  Eliza  Mary 
Barrow."  You  would  think  that  a  man  and  his  wife,  who  are  entirely 
dependent  upon  this  woman,  and  who  are  there  as  her  guests  would  have, 
at  any  rate,  recognised  her  right  to  say,  "  I  do  not  want  you  any  more — 
I  want  to  terminate  this  arrangement ;  there  is  no  arrangement  for  any 
definite  time,"  and  you  would  think  that  they  would,  at  any  rate,  treat 
her  with  some  courtesy.  She  was  his  old  sweetheart,  you  know.  He 
had  known  her  for  many,  many  years.  What  is  his  answer?  For- 
tunately, we  have  got  his  answer;  it  is  exhibit  24.  "Miss  Barrow,  as 

295 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


you  are  so  impudent  to  send  the  letter  to  hand,  I  wish  to  inform  you  that 
I  shall  require  the  return  of  my  late  mother's  and  sister's  furniture,  and 
the  expense  of  my  moving  here  and  away. — Yours,  D.  B.  Hook."  What 
does  that  mean?  He  had  got  his  sister's  furniture,  but  he  had  no  right 
to  sell  it,  as  he  admits  he  sold  it  to  her,  as  it  did  not  belong  to  him. 
He  would  not  be  the  next-of-kin,  but  he  had  sold  her  the  furniture  and 
taken  a  receipt  for  it.  He  is  not  a  very  creditable  person  to  have  any- 
thing to  do  with.  What  is  he  saying  to  her,  "  If  you  are  going  to  get 
rid  of  me  I  am  going  to  make  myself  disagreeable.  I  am  going  to  have 
all  the  furniture,  and  you  will  be  in  a  nice  hole  then — I  am  going  to  take 
away  the  furniture  that  belonged  to  my  mother  and  sister."  And  then 
he  goes  on  to  add  finally  the  postscript — just  as  a  woman  would  do — the 
final  threat — "  I  shall  have  to  take  Ernie  with  me,  as  it  is  not  safe  to 
leave  him  with  you."  Why  was  not  it  safe  to  leave  him  with  her1? 
What  do  we  know  of  Miss  Barrow?  We  do  know  that  the  boy  said  in 
his  evidence  that  she  once  threatened  to  jump  out  of  the  window  because 
he  had  done  something  that  annoyed  her,  and  that  is  probably  true, 
but  what  had  Miss  Barrow  done  to  Hook  that  Hook  should  dare  to  say, 
"It  is  not  safe  to  leave  Ernie  with  you?  "  Of  course,  it  is  a  veiled 
threat.  He  knew  he  could  get  at  the  poor  woman  that  way.  He  knew 
he  could  hurt  her  more  by  taking  the  child,  and  he  says,  "  If  you  are 
going  to  get  rid  of  me  I  shall  take  the  furniture,  and  I  shall  take  Ernie. 
Where  will  you  be  then?  " 

The  threat  is  not  efficacious,  and  Miss  Barrow  is  not  frightened  by 
it.  She  persists  in  getting  rid  of  him.  She  goes  to  Seddon,  and  she 
says  to  Seddon,  "  I  cannot  get  rid  of  this  man,  you  must  get  rid  of  him 
for  me.  I  am  your  tenant.  Get  rid  of  him."  Seddon  thereupon 
writes  him  that  letter,  and  gives  him  a  notice  on  9th  August — "  Dear 
Sir, — As  due  notice  has  been  given  you,  and  duly  expired,  I  now  find  it 
necessary  to  inform  you  that  you  are  no  longer  entitled  to  remain  on  my 
premises,"  &c.  Hook  says  to  Mr.  Seddon  he  will  not  go  in  twenty- 
four  hours,  and  there  is  an  angry  scene  between  them,  and  he  insults 
him.  He  has  only  been  there  ten  days  at  the  outside.  "  I  told  him 
to  his  face,  '  It  is  her  money  you  are  after.'  '  What  ground  had  he  for 
making  such  a  monstrous  suggestion?  There  was  absolutely  nothing, 
except  that  Mr.  Seddon  had  backed  up  Miss  Barrow  in  her  desire  to  get 
rid  of  this  man,  who,  according  to  the  boy's  evidence,  had  taken  the  boy 
and  his  own  wife  out  on  that  Sunday,  leaving  her  crying.  What  possible 
foundation  was  there  for  Hook  making  that  suggestion,  "  I  told  him  it's 
her  money  you  are  after.  It  would  take  a  regiment  like  you  to  get  her 
money  out  of  her."  He  was  grossly  impudent  to  this  man  who,  at  any 
rate,  was  his  landlord.  This  man  was  entirely  dependent  upon  the 
charity  of  the  woman  with  whom  he  was  living. 

Has  it  occurred  to  you — I  know  it  has  in  this  case — that  Hook's 
conduct  was  absolutely  inexcusable?  If  Hook  was  an  honest  and  genuine 
man,  and  he  meant  what  he  said,  and  it  was  not  mere  vulgar  abuse,  and 
he  thought  Mr.  Seddon  was  after  her  money,  and  it  was  not  safe  for  the 
boy  to  be  with  her  there,  and  Mr.  Seddon  was  going  to  steal  her  money, 
and  that  she  had  in  her  possession  £400  in  gold,  besides  a  large  sum  in 
notes,  he  knew  where  the  Vonderahes  lived,  and  he  knew  where  the  other 
296 


Closing   Speech  on   behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

relations  were,  and  he  could  have  given  some  information  to  them.  Yet, 
when  he  is  turned  out  of  that  house,  as  he  is,  because  he  will  not  go,  in 
August,  1910,  he  never  makes  any  sign  of  any  sort  or  shape.  So  far 
as  Miss  Barrow  is  concerned,  he  might  have  been  dead.  He  never  turned 
up  again  upon  the  scene  until  25th  November,  when,  reading  in  a  news- 
paper that  there  was  an  inquest  upon  Miss  Barrow,  and  that  she  had 
drawn  £216  in  gold,  he  comes  upon  the  scene  and  makes  a  statement  to 
the  police.  Gentlemen,  I  say  that  evidence  is  absolutely  unreliable,  and 
it  is  absolutely  unworthy  of  any  credence  of  any  sort  or  shape,  and  I  ask 
you  to  disregard  it  entirely,  because  you  cannot  possibly  rely  upon  it. 

Gentlemen,  as  far  as  I  know,  nothing  took  place  in  August  or  Sep- 
tember. Then  we  come  to  October,  when  the  first  negotiation  took  place 
with  regard  to  the  annuity.  In  October  we  get  the  negotiations  with 
regard  to  the  India  stock.  I  think  I  have  already  dealt  with  them.  I 
have  already  pointed  out,  and  I  am  not  going  to  repeat  it,  that  she  got 
what  she  -herself  wanted — an  annuity.  I  will  just  go  over  the  figures 
for  one  moment  as  to  what  annuity  he  granted  for  her  own  satisfaction. 
He  granted  her  £72  and  £52  per  annum,  and,  in  addition  to  that,  there 
was  £31  4s.  made  up  of  12s.  a  week  for  the  rent.  So  that  you  see 
the  total  amount  that  he  had  to  pay  under  the  annuity  was  £155  4s. 
Against  that,  what  he  received  was  this.  He  received  £1519  16s.,  the 
proceeds  of  the  East  India  stock,  and  he  received  a  figure,  which  you  must 
take  as  genuine  in  this  case,  because  there  has  been  no  contradiction  of 
it,  £706,  which  was  the  then  value  of  the  Buck's  Head  property,  according 
to  the  valuation  which  was  put  in  in  the  case.  Therefore  he  received 
£1519  16s.  and  £706.  As  against  that  he  had  to  pay  some  £38  14s. 
for  costs  and  incidental  expenses,  so  the  net  amount  he  received  was 
£2187  2s.  Now,  I  have  made  a  calculation,  and  I  have  no  doubt  it  will 
be  checked  if  it  is  not  accurate.  For  that  sum,  in  the  Post  Office, 
in  the  event  of  death  no  payment,  and  the  first  payment  after  six  months, 
which  is  a  very  important  consideration  in  dealing  with  the  value 
of  an  annuity,  she  would  be  able  to  purchase  an  annuity  of  £128.  So, 
you  see,  she  benefits  to  the  extent  of  £27  per  annum  by  the  purchase  of 
an  annuity  in  this  way,  assuming  the  annuity  she  is  paid  is  secured.  The 
question  of  security,  with  all  deference  to  my  learned  friend  the  Attorney- 
General,  is  entirely  immaterial  so  long  as  the  annuity  is  paid.  I  quite 
agree  that  for  the  purpose  of  valuing  an  annuity  for  the  purpose  of  sale 
it  would  make  a  great  deal  of  difference  as  to  who  was  the  guarantor  of 
the  annuity ;  but,  for  the  purpose  of  merely  paying  the  value  of  the  annuity 
to  the  annuitant,  it  makes  no  difference,  because,  so  long  as  the  instal- 
ments are  duly  and  punctually  paid,  she  has  no  claim  or  remedy  against 
the  person  who  has  granted  the  annuity  to  her.  Seddon,  honestly  and 
honourably,  carried  out  his  obligation,  and  she  got  £27  per  annum  more 
than  she  would  have  got  under  any  other  scheme  of  annuity  through  the 
Post  Office  or  through  a  first-class  insurance  office.  My  learned  friend 
Mr.  Dunstan  reminds  me  that  as  to  £52  of  an  annuity  she  was  absolutely 
secured  upon  the  property.  As  to  the  £72,  I  agree  she  is  entirely 
dependent  upon  the  honour  of  Mr.  Seddon.  As  a  proof,  however,  of  his 
honourable  intentions,  he  does  not  invest  this  money  in  some  "  wild-cat  " 
securities,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  with  a  view  to  making  a  large  profit, 

297 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


but  lie  bought  substantial  house  property,  which  could  not  run  away.  I 
say  that,  although  it  may  have  been  theoretically  a  bad  security  for  this 
woman,  he  appears  to  have  been  behaving  honourably,  as  far  as  he  was 
concerned,  and  she  benefited  to  the  extent  of  £30. 

One  little  item  comes  in  here.  It  is  a  very  small  item,  but  sometimes 
the  slightest  straw  shows  the  way  the  wind  blows.  He  tells  you  he  had 
paid  £4  13s.  for  costs.  She  would  not  pay  them,  as  she  objected  very 
much  to  solicitors — an  objection  which  is  shared  by  a  great  many  people ; 
nobody  likes  the  law,  whatever  branch  of  the  law  one  deals  with;  there  is 
a  great  prejudice  against  it.  I  am  not  suggesting  it  is  any  insane  view 
on  her  part,  but  she  said,  "  I  will  not  pay  any  costs,"  and  he  has  to  pay 
the  costs.  In  addition  to  the  costs  which  he  had  paid,  which  were  the 
proper  costs  of  the  conveyance,  he  had  to  pay  a  sum  of  £4  13s.  for  the 
costs  of  the  solicitor  who  represented  her.  He  asked  her  to  pay  it,  and 
she  said,  "  No,  she  would  not  pay  it,"  but  she  gave  him  a  small  diamond 
ring.  I  merely  asked,  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  value  of  it,  when  the  jeweller 
was  in  the  box,  and  he  said,  "  I  would  give  £4  for  it  myself  " ;  therefore 
you  may  assume  that  it  is  worth  something  between  £4  and  £5  for  the 
purpose  of  purchasing.  That  is  merely  a  question  of  a  diamond  ring  which 
she  gave  him  for  having  paid  her  costs  over  and  above  the  costs  which 
she  had  properly  incurred.  As  I  say,  that  is  a  small  amount,  but  it  shows 
he  was  not  robbing  the  woman.  We  are  not  experts  or  judges  of  what 
diamond  rings  are  worth,  and  when  we  hear  of  a  diamond  ring  we  think 
it  is  worth  a  lot  of  money,  whereas  the  jeweller,  who  is  an  expert,  says  that 
it  is  worth  £4  or  £5  to  buy.  That  is  the  transaction,  as  far  as  we  know, 
which  took  place  in  October.  The  stock  was  transferred,  and  then  the 
annuity  was  deferred  until  the  whole  matter  could  be  settled  up  with 
regard  to  the  Buck's  Head  property.  Upon  the  completion  of  the  Buck's 
Head  property  transfer  in  January,  1911,  the  annuity  was  paid  promptly 
from  that  time.  I  do  not  suppose  for  a  moment  that  my  learned  friend 
will  attempt  to  question  those  receipts,  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  he 
has  made  use  of  them  in  his  argument  to  show  that  Miss  Barrow  had  more 
money  in  the  house.  My  learned  friend  cannot  have  it  both  ways,  and  he 
cannot  say  they  are  bogus  receipts.  On  the  face  of  them  they  are  all 
obviously  genuine,  and  not  to  be  questioned.  Any  way,  they  are  not 
questioned,  and  therefore  I  am  entitled  to  say  that,  so  far  as  the  bargain 
was  concerned,  it  was  honourably  carried  out  until  the  month  of  September, 
when  she  died. 

There  is  one  tiny  bit  of  evidence  in  this  case  which  I  want  to  deal 
with,  now  I  think  of  it.  You  will  remember  the  curious  little  bit  of 
evidence  that  Ernie  Grant  gave,  which,  as  far  as  I  know,  had  not  been 
given  before ;  I  may  be  wrong  about  that ;  I  do  not  profess  to  have  every 
minute  detail  of  this  case  in  my  head  at  this  minute.  As  far  as  I  know, 
Ernie  Grant  for  the  first  time  said  she  used  to  go  down  and  sometimes 
come  up  with  gold.  He  said  he  thought  she  came  up  with  about  £3  in  gold. 
That  is  a  curious  point.  I  am  not  suggesting  that  those  were  the  annuity 
payments  at  all.  I  am  suggesting  that  those  were  occasions  when  she  paid 
her  rent  by  a  bank  note,  and  came  up  with  the  change  of  a  bank 

note,  £4  8s.,  or  whatever  it  was.     Those  four  or  five  occasions 

298 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F,  H.  Seddon* 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — He  did  not  say  four  or  five. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Well,  three  or  four. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — He  said  "  Sometimes  three  pieces  of  gold."" 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — You  cannot  expect  the  boy  to  be  exactly 
accurate.  I  suggest  to  you  it  is  an  absolute  corroboration  of  the  boy'* 
story,  having  regard  to  Mr.  Seddon's  story  about  this  £5  note.  With  regard 
to  the  other  £5  note  he  is  absolutely  corroborated,  because  he  has  said, 
though  the  learned  Attorney-General  was  not  actually  in  the  position  to 
admit  the  justice  of  the  statement,  that  he  had  made  inquiries  -with  regard 
to  the  other  £5.  I  have  dealt  with  one,  and,  with  regard  to  the  other 
£5  note,  he  admittedly  received  it,  and  he  said,  "  That  was  given  to  me 
because  I  paid  the  Buck's  Head  rent."  You  heard  the  gentleman  yesterday 
who  told  you  that  the  rent  was  nearly  always  paid  in  postal  orders.  In. 
this  particular  case  it  was  paid  by  cheque.  There  is  the  entry  in  Seddon's 
bank  book  of  a  cheque  having  been  paid  upon  that  date.  It  is  admitted 
that  he  did  pay  that,  and  he  took  a  £5  note  and  £4  in  gold  from  her. 
There  are  six  notes  altogether  which  have  been  dealt  with  by  Mr.  Seddon. 
Five  of  them  were  paid  into  his  bank  as  part  of  a  payment  in  which  he 
made,  and  which  he  explained  to  you  as  money  he  had  received  which 
he  had  changed  for  gold,  and  the  other,  the  sixth  note,  he  paid  in  to  make 
up  the  cheque  for  £9  8s.  which  he  drew  to  pay  for  the  ground  rent  of  the 
Buck's  Head. 

There  is  just  the  little  matter  I  want  to  mention  in  1910,  because 
I  think  it  is  material  when  you  come  to  consider  this  case.  You  must 
remember  that  in  the  month  of  August,  1910,  Miss  Barrow  was  suffering 
from  some  complaint,  which  was  congestion  of  the  liver,  or  some  stomach 
complaint  which  produced  this  gastric  disturbance.  She  was  taken  by 
Mrs.  Seddon  to  Dr.  Paul,  who  is  a  strange  doctor,  and  therefore  in  no  way 
a  person  who  was  known  to  Mrs.  Seddon.  That  is  a  matter  I  do  not  think 
ought  to  be  lost  sight  of.  When  questions  are  put  to  Mrs.  Seddon  with 
regard  to  what  took  place  towards  the  end  of  the  year  1910  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  year  1911,  you  have  to  remember  that  she  was  in  an 
interesting  condition,  and  that  early  in  January  a  baby  was  born,  and 
for  some  little  time,  at  any  rate,  she  would  not  know  what  was  going  on. 
That  would  account  for  her  ignorance  with  regard  to  certain  matters  that 
have  been  dealt  with  in  March,  1911,  after  Miss  Barrow  comes  to  the  house. 

In  April  that  extraordinary  lady,  Miss  Mary  Chater  comes.  You 
have  seen  her  in  the  box.  You  are  the  judges  of  the  demeanour  of  people. 
You  have  seen  this  woman.  There  she  is — a  woman  earning  5s.  a  week 
as  a  general  servant,  insisting  upon  dressing  herself  as  a  hospital  nurse. 
When  not  expecting  to  be  called  on  the  second  day,  she  certainly  came 
without  her  uniform,  but  in  case  she  might  be  called  upon  she  appeared  in 
uniform  yesterday.  She  is  a  woman  who  had  had  I  do  not  know  how  many 
situations,  and  I  suggest  to  you  she  is  absolutely  of  a  very  eccentric 
disposition.  I  put  to  her  questions  in  cross-examination,  and,  as  my  lord 
pointed  out,  I  was  entirely  bound  by  her  answers,  because  they  were  ques- 
tions as  to  her  credit.  I  cannot  call  a  witness  to  say  that  her  brother  has 
been  twenty  years  in  an  asylum,  and  that  her  late  employer  stated  she 
was  off  her  head.  She  denies  that,  and  I  cannot  call  evidence  to  disprove 
it.  You  saw  her  face,  and  you  saw  her  demeanour.  You  were  nearer  to 

299 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


her  than  I,  and  I  venture  to  think  you  have  probably  no  doubt  whatever 
with  regard  to  her  true  mental  condition.  I  am  only  saying  that  for  the 
moment;  I  am  going  to  say  something  more  presently. 

About  this  time,  it  is  admitted,  Miss  Barrow  went  to  a  funeral  at 
the  Vonderahe's  house.  There,  again,  there  was  a  quibble.  When  I  said 
to  Mr.  Vonderahe  "funeral  at  your  house?"  he  said,  "Not  at  my  house — 
from  some  other  place."  Miss  Barrow  complained  of  the  way  she  had  been 
treated  by  the  Vonderahes,  and,  evidently  burning  under  the  feeling  of  the 
injustice  which  had  been  inflicted  upon  her  on  27th  March  of  that  year, 
she  writes  this  letter  to  Mr.  SecTdon  : — "  Dear  Mr.  Seddon,  my  only  nearest 
relatives  living  are  first  cousins,"  &c.,  &c.  (reading  down  to  the  words), 
"  Yours  sincerely,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.''*  So,  again,  there  is  no  possibility 
of  a  question  that  that  letter  is  a  letter  in  the  handwriting  of  Miss  Barrow, 
and  obviously  from  the  way  in  which  it  is  worded  a  perfectly  voluntary 
•document  written  by  Miss  Barrow,  and  obviously  meant  by  Miss  Barrow 
to  be  considered  tantamount  to  a  will.  That  is  of  some  importance  when 
\ve  come  to  consider  the  subsequent  events  which  took  place  on  llth 
September.  Undoubtedly  Miss  Barrow,  from  the  very  phraseology  of  that 
document,  considered  that  it  had  all  the  effect  of  a  will,  the  fact  being 
that  she  did  not  wish  her  relatives  to  receive  anything  whatever  at  her 
death,  as  they  had  treated  her  badly.  The  fact  that  she  had  been  to  this 
funeral  started  the  subject  of  a  will.  No  doubt  death  does  make  us  realise 
our  own  possible  death ;  and  there  is  that  suggestion  which  accounts  for  the 
writing  of  that  letter  at  that  otherwise  isolated  period.  That  document, 
as  I  say,  is  in  existence,  and  there  is  no  suggestion  of  any  sort  of  shape 
made  against  Mr.  Seddon  in  respect  of  that. 

The  next  date  of  any  importance  is  30th  May,  1911.  On  30th  May, 
1911,  beyond  all  question  there  was  sent  to  the  Surveyor  of  Income  Tax 
by  Miss  Barrow  a  document  which  we  have  got.  It  is  in  Miss  Barrow's 
handwriting  again.  Gentlemen,  it  is  of  the  most  vital  importance  to 
remember  that  fact.  "This  is  to  certify,"  &c.,  <tc.  (reading  down  to  the 
words),  "  Eliza  Mary  Barrow."  So  you  see  she  gave  a  notice  to  the  Inland 
Revenue  people  that  she  was  in  receipt  of  this  annuity,  and  this  would  be 
always  valuable  in  the  event  of  Seddon's  death,  or  Seddon  disputing  it. 
as  it  created  evidence  of  some  sort  in  the  hands  of  the  Inland  Revenue 
people  to  show  that  this  annuity  was  in  existence,  and  was  a  valid  charge 
which  was  being  carried  out.  Gentlemen,  I  think  I  may  fairly  say  that  at 
that  point  I  can  dismiss  the  annuity  question;  I  need  not  argue  or  deal 
with  the  annuity  question  any  more.  First  of  all,  it  is  not  attacked  here, 
and  therefore  I  am  entitled  to  say,  as  we  lawyers  say,  "  Everything  is 
presumed  to  be  rightly  carried  out,"  and  therefore  we  must  presume 
everything  was  rightly  carried  out,  because  the  law  does  not  inquire 
into  a  bargain  where  the  adequacy  of  the  consideration  is  shown;  in  a 
transaction  of  this  kind  you  have  got  to  accept  a  bargain,  and,  so  far  as 
Seddon  is  concerned,  his  part  of  the  bargain  was  regularly  carried  out  up 
to  the  time  of  the  death. 

On  19th  June  a  very  important  thing  takes  place.  On  the  19th 
June  Miss  Barrow,  who  had  become  alarmed  by  reason  of  the  Birkbeck 


*  See  Appendix  F. 
300 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  ot  F.   H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

Bank  scare,  having  given  notice  a  week  before,  on  the  12th,  in  pursuance 
of  that  notice  goes  to  withdraw  the  sum  of  £216  9s.  7d.,  which  she  had 
invested  in  the  savings  bank.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  to  notice  that 
in  that  bank  there  was  an  investment  account  which  was  open  to  further 
sums  of  money  had  she  been  disposed  to  invest  it.  It  is  only  avail- 
able to  depositors  who  must  have  £50  before  they  can  use  it,  and  I 
think  '2*  per  cent,  was  paid.  She  had  given  notice  that  she  wanted 
half  in  notes  and  half  in  gold,  but  she  will  not  have  it  in  notes.  She 
is  evidently  alarmed  by  the  Birkbeck  Bank  scare,  and  she  does  not  think 
the  Bank  of  England  is  good  enough,  so  she  asks  for  gold.  It  may  be- 
that  you  will  take  into  consideration  when  you  are  considering  the  speech, 
of  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Rentoul,  that  there  is  this  obvious  disinclina- 
tion of  this  lady  to  hold  notes.  Anyhow,  she  insists  on  having  gold.. 
She  comes  back  with  Mrs.  Seddon,  who  has  gone  with  her,  and  they 
come  to  the  house  bringing  back  this  £216  9s.  7d.  in  gold,  silver,  and; 
copper.  I  do  not  think  you  can  have  any  doubt  upon  this.  Of  course » 
there  is  no  other  evidence  of  it  except  Mrs.  Seddon's,  but  please  let  me 
warn  you  of  this.  In  this  Court,  when  accused  persons  were  enabled  by 
Act  of  Parliament  to  give  evidence,  there  is  not  the  smallest  presumption, 
to  be  made  against  them  that  their  evidence  is  untrue.  You  have  got 
to  remember  that.  On  the  face  of  it  the  evidence  of  an 
accused  person  is  prima  facie  as  true  as  the  evidence  on  behalf  of  the; 
Crown,  otherwise  it  would  be  a  cruel  injustice.  There  is  no  presump- 
tion that  anything  an  accused  person  says  in  his  own  favour  should  be 
regarded  as  false.  We  start  with  that;  it  is  not  challenged,  and  you 
may  assume  the  evidence  is  true.  Where  it  is  challenged  you  have  to 
judge  for  yourselves  what  effect  you  will  give  to  the  evidence  as  given  s 
and  the  cross-examination  as  against  it. 

Upon  this  date,  according  to  the  evidence,  Mr.  Seddon  said,  "  I 
do  not  like  you  to  bring  the  money  into  the  house.  It  is  not  safe  to 
have  this  large  amount  of  money  in  the  house,  but  she  got  quite/ 
angry  with  me  for  saying  that,  and  sulked  for  a  week.  She  said  to. 
me,  '  I  know  what  to  do  with  it.'  '  Now,  as  to  what  became  of  that 
money  in  your  view  may  depend  a  good  deal  upon  your  decision  as  to. 
whether  Seddon  is  an  honest  or  a  dishonest  man.  I  agree  that  on 
what  you  think  became  of  the  money — upon  the  view  you  take  with- 
regard  to  that  money — will  depend  your  decision  in  your  own  minds  as, 
to  whether  Mr.  Seddon  is  an  honest  or  a  dishonest  man,  but  whether 
Seddon  is  an  honest  or  a  dishonest  man  has  nothing  whatever  to  do. 
with  the  question  of  whether  Seddon  has  committed  this  murder.  There 
is  this  £216.  Let  me  say  this — this  woman  was  an  eccentric  person, 
about  money  from  all  points  of  view;  she  was  not  normal  on  the  subject 
of  money.  Although  she  has  an  investment  account  she  does  not  use 
it.  Having  a  deposit  account  in  a  big  savings  bank  she  draws  it  air 
out  in  gold  because  she  will  not  trust  even  the  bank  notes  of  the  Bank 
of  England.  Seddon  tells  her  that  there  are  several  banks  where  she- 
can  put  the  money,  but  she  says,  "  I  know  what  to  do  with  it." 

I  want  you  to  draw  a  mental  picture  of  this  woman  up  to  this  time. 
Up  to  1st  September  this  woman  is  a  hale  and  hearty  woman,  out  at  alf 
hours  and  late  at  night,  as  you  have  been  told;  coming  back  quite  late.. 

301 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


meeting  relatives,  and  meeting  people  in  the  park.  How  do  we  know 
that  this  woman  had  not  gone  and  hidden  this  money  in  some  hole  of 
her  own?  A  woman  who  will  not  trust  the  Bank  of  England  is  the 
sort  of  person  who  will  stuff  this  money  in  some  place  where  it  cannot 
be  traced.  Why  is  it  such  a  violent  assumption  to  assume  that  this 
woman,  who  is  such  an  eccentric  person,  has  dealt  with  this  money  in 
.some  such  way?  Why  is  it  a  more  violent  assumption  to  assume  that 
than  to  assume  that  Seddon  has  not  murdered  her?  Because  you  are 
.asked  to  draw  the  assumption  that  Seddon  has  murdered  Miss  Barrow 
because  of  the  £216  which  was  in  her  possession  in  June  that  year, 
and  which  has  disappeared  when  her  box  is  searched  on  14th  September 
of  the  same  year.  I  know  my  lord  will  point  out  to  you  that  it  is  not 
really  absolutely  relevant  in  this  case  of  murder.  Why  should  you 
draw  the  assumption  that  Seddon  has  murdered  her  and  taken  this 
money,  as  I  say,  against  the  assumption  that  she  may  have  dealt  with 
it  in  some  eccentric  manner?  Here  is  a  woman  who  will  not  trust  the 
bank,  who  will  not  trust  an  investment  account  even  in  a  big  bank,  and 
a  peculiar  woman  to  deal  with  on  the  subject  of  money.  You  know  in 
your  own  experience  of  life  what  silly,  foolish  things  are  done  by  people 
who  believe  that  by  hiding  their  money  in  some  stocking,  or  in  some  other 
extraordinary  way,  they  have  protected  themselves  against  the  dishonesty 
of  banks  and  people  of  that  class.  How  often  has  money  been  lost, 
and  after  a  number  of  years  discovered  in  an  unexpected  way?  You 
are  trying  this  man  for  his  life.  How  do  we  know  that  she  might  not 
possibly  have  put  it  somewhere  under  an  assumed  name,  so  that  people 
could  not  trace  it  in  any  sort  of  way?  She  might  have  absolutely 
hidden  it  in  some  hiding  place.  If  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution 
is  true,  she  was  a  woman  who  would  leave  £400  in  gold  in  an  ordinary 
common  trunk.  You  have  seen  the  keys.  I  hope  you  know  something 
about  keys.  Look  at  them.  I  think  if  you  went  into  any  trunk  shop 
in  London  and  asked  for  twenty  keys  haphazard  to  fit  that  class  of  trunk 
you  would  find  25  per  cent,  fit  this  trunk.  You  see  the  class  of  key 
it  is.  Yet  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution  is  that  this  woman  goes  away 
from  5th  August  to  8th  August,  to  Southend,  and  leaves  her  cash-box 
behind  her  with  £300,  or  more  with  the  notes,  with  not  a  soul  in  the 
house  except  that  poor  unfortunate  girl  Chater.  I  do  not  suggest  for 
a  moment  that  she  stole  a  farthing  of  it;  I  am  only  suggesting  that  she 
is  not  a  competent  watch  dog  to  take  care  of  £300  or  £400  in  gold. 
If  that  woman  had  that  money  at  the  time  of  her  death,  she  must  have 
had  it  between  the  oth  and  8th  August,  and  yet  all  that  time  she  goes 
away  and  leaves  her  trunk  behind.  No  evidence  is  called  to  suggest 
that  she  took  the  cash-box  with  her,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  so  she 
presumably  left  it  behind.  Which  is  the  more  violent  assumption — 
that  this  eccentric  woman  would  do  something  of  that  sort,  or  when  she 
said  she  knew  perfectly  well  what  to  do  with  it  she  had  put  it  into  some 
place  which  according  to  her  own  ideas  was  safe? 

They  all  go  away  together,  and  they  are  all  on  the  best  of  terms. 
They  come  back  from  Southend  in  that  frightfully  hot  weather  which 
you  will  all  remember.  Miss  Barrow  had  the  run  of  the  house;  she 
was  allowed  to  go  downstairs  into  the  dining-room,  or  sit  in  the  kitchen; 

.102 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.    H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

she  had  the  run  of  the  place.  I  think  the  little  chap  said  that  he  and 
Miss  Barrow  went  downstairs  whenever  they  liked.  She  was  treated 
entirely  as  one  of  the  family,  and  the  little  chap  was  treated  as  one  of 
the  family;  and  we  know  how  successfully,  because  we  have  the  little 
chap's  admission  that  he  was  very  happy  indeed,  as  the  Seddons  were 
very  kind  to  him.  He  calls  Miss  Barrow  "  Chickie,"  and  was  very 
fond  of  her. 

And  now  I  am  approaching  the  critical  dates  of  this  case.  On  1st 
September  she  has  a  bilious  attack.  I  do  want  to  know  what  the  theory 
is,  because  the  suggestion  was  certainly  put  to  one  of  the  medical  men. 
Is  it  suggested  she  never  had  this  epidemic  diarrhoea  at  all?  This  is  the 
question  as  put:  that  for  some  time  she  suffered  from  pains  which  were 
consistent  with  arsenical  poisoning.  If  that  is  not  merely  put  forward 
as  something  for  you  to  clutch  hold  of,  but  if  that  is  put  forward  as  a 
really  substantial  suggestion  in  this  case,  I  want  to  know  where  we 
begin?  Is  it  suggested  that  on  1st  September  this  woman  was  being 
poisoned?  It  looks  like  it,  because  they  rely  so  much  upon  the  pur- 
chase of  the  fly-papers  on  26th  August — a  purchase  which  on  behalf  of 
the  defence  I  most  strenuously  deny,  and  a  purchase  which  on  behalf  of 
the  defence  I  challenge  you  to  use  your  own  discretion  as  to  whether  you 
would  hang  a  cat  upon  as  regards  the  identification  furnished  by  Thorley 
under  the  circumstances  which  have  been  given  to  this  case.  Gentle- 
men, on  1st  September  this  woman  has  a  bad  bilious  attack.  She  has 
had  them  before;  she  has  had  them  several  times  before;  she  has  had 
them  in  November;  she  has  had  them,  according  to  Dr.  Francis,  in  the 
form  of  gastritis,  some  time  before;  she  has  had  them  for  years  on  and 
off,  and  Mrs.  Seddon  tells  you  in  her  evidence  that  she  had  been  con- 
stantly, having  this  sort  of  illness  all  the  time  she  was  there,  and  she 
was  always  complaining.  Do  not  forget  this  important  bit  of  evidence 
— always  making  the  most  of  her  maladies.  Why?  Because  she  wanted 
the  sympathy  and  the  attention  that  she  got  from  Mrs.  Seddon.  On 
1st  September  she  has  a  very  bad  bilious  attack,  and  she  was  sick, 
"  A  real  bilious  attack,"  was  Mrs.  Seddon's  explanation  of  it.  She 
helps  her  upstairs,  and  all  I  can  say  is — and  here  I  am  trespassing  rather 
on  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Rentoul's  province — if  this  woman  is  a  mur- 
deress you  will  have  to  consider  the  extraordinary  care,  and  the  extra- 
ordinary kindness  and  devotion  that  she  lavished  upon  the  woman  whom 
it  is  alleged  she  eventually  murdered.  There  was  no  call  upon  her; 
she  was  not  a  relative  of  hers.  A  lot  of  sentiment  envelopes  the  dead. 
You  always  speak  with  hushed  breath  of  virtues  which  never  existed  in 
the  living  person.  This  woman  was  a  bit  of  a  nuisance.  We  have  got 
to  take  the  facts;  we  have  not  got  to  clothe  our  minds  with  sentimental 
expressions.  She  was  a  bit  of  a  nuisance  in  that  house.  She  was 
always  complaining  of  something;  and  she  was  eccentric;  when  she  was 
ill  she  was  always  wanting  attention.  My  learned  friend  will  deal  with 
that  very  eloquently. 

I  am  sure  it  has  not  escaped  my  lord,  and  it  has  not  escaped  my 
learned  friend  the  Attorney-General,  that  every  attention  was  lavished 
upon  this  woman  by  Mrs.  Seddon.  Is  it  conceivable  that  any  woman  of 
that  temperament  could  have  been  such  a  Judas?  This  woman  has 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


nursed  her  night  after  night,  putting  hot  flannels  on  her,  and  doing 
everything  she  could  do  for  her,  sitting  in  the  room  with  all  this  foetid 
stench,  then  murdering  her  with  a  corrosive  poison,  burning  out  her  inside 
in  agony,  and  then  when  she  is  dead  remonstrates  because  the  blinds  were 
not  pulled  down — remonstrates  because  they  wanted  to  take  the  body  out  of 
the  house — goes  and  buys  a  wreath,  and  takes  the  wreath  to  the  under- 
taker, and — the  final  climax  of  hypocrisy  that  is  worthy  of  a  Borgia — when 
the  coffin  lid  is  lifted  kisses  the  brow  of  the  woman  she  has  murdered  I 
I  should  have  thought  that  a  statement  of  those  facts  would  have  created 
such  an  irresistible  presumption  in  her  favour  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  conceive  such  a  fiend  in  human  shape  walking  the  earth  if  this  woman 
has  been  guilty  of  this  crime. 

I  have  trespassed  for  the  moment.  This  woman  is  the  client  of  my 
learned  friend.  But  she  is  the  wife  of  my  client.  The  first  outbreak  that 
he  made  in  the  box  he  made  when  it  was  suggested  by  my  learned  friend 
to  him  that  what  he  had  said  on  arrest  was  capable  of  the  construction 
that  he  had  suggested  the  arrest  of  his  wife.  Of  course,  he  had  never 
suggested  anything  of  the  kind.  You  remember  this  man  had  stood  for 
hours  and  hours  under  the  torture  of  examination  and  cross-examination 
in  this  case,  and  you  remember  how  he  kept  his  voice  and  manner  level 
and  never  got  excited,  but  when  that  suggestion  came  up  he  said,  "  I  have 
longed  to  get  into  this  box  to  refute  that.  To  suggest  that  I  suggested 
that  my  wife  should  be  arrested  is  an  iniquitous  thing.  I  never  suggested 
anything  of  the  kind."  Is  it  likely  that  a  man  with  five  children  at  home 
should  suggest  that  his  wife  should  be  arrested?  I  have  been  carried 
away  by  the  necessity  of  saying  something  which  had  to  be  said,  and 
which  I  know  will  be  said  with  greater  effect  by  my  learned  friend,  but  it 
came  in  at  that  moment,  because  upon  that  hypothesis  these  people  are 
villains  beyond  imagination. 

If  it  is  suggested  that  the  symptoms  which  occurred  on  1st  September 
were  not  the  symptoms  of  a  genuine  bilious  attack,  but  were  the  symptoms 
of  the  commencement  of  poisoning,  which  culminated  upon  the  night 
of  the  13th  and  14th  September,  then  I  suggest  to  you  that  you  would  have 
to  search  the  annals  of  the  Italian  poisoners  to  find  anything  so  cruel  and 
so  dastardly.  Let  me  make  one  comment  in  passing.  Supposing  the 
fly-papers  were  bought,  as  is  suggested,  on  26th  August,  supposing  these 
people,  such  contemptible  cowards,  sent  their  little  child  to  buy  the  poison 
to  poison  this  woman,  supposing  they  concocted  this  poison,  and  they 
began  to  administer  this  poison  so  as  to  create  those  symptoms  from  that 
date :  is  it  credible  they  would  have  called  in  two  doctors — first,  Dr.  Paul 
and  then  Dr.  Sworn?  It  is  too  impossible  to  need  argument.  It  is 
an  insult  to  your  intelligence  to  suggest  it.  It  is  an  insult  to  the 
intelligence  of  any  man  to  suggest  that  people  who  are  going  to  poison  a 
woman  under  circumstances  like  those,  by  gradual  doses  of  an  irritant 
poison,  should  call  in  one  doctor,  and  then,  when  that  doctor  cannot  come, 
to  fetch  another.  I  say  that  theory  goes  to  the  winds.  There  is  no 
possible  foundation  for  it.  It  was  never  suggested  by  that  great  expert. 
Dr.  Willcox,  at  the  coroner's  inquest.  His  suggestion  was  that  there 
was  a  moderately  large  fatal  dose  administered  within  twenty-four  possibly, 
but  not  less  than  six  hours  probably,  within  three  days  of  death,  and 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

that  was  the  case  that  we  came  here  to  meet,  until  the  suggestion  is  now 
seriously  made  by  the  Crown  that  the  whole  of  the  symptoms  of  this 
epidemic  diarrhoea  could  not  have  been  symptoms  of  epidemic  diarrhoea 
at  all,  but  were  symptoms  created  and  caused  by  the  gradual  administra- 
tion of  this  irritant  and  corrosive  poison.  Gentlemen,  that  is  for  you  to 
consider.  And,  do  not  forget  this,  that  the  adoption  of  the  second 
theory  is  of  itself  a  weakening  of  the  first.  They  themselves  realise  the 
weakness  of  their  case  upon  the  one  fatal  dose  theory,  and  they  are  driven 
to  adopt  the  suggestion  that  there  may  have  been  a  continuous  adminis- 
tration over  a  period  of  thirteen  days.  One  is  mutually  destructive  of 
the  other,  and,  so  far  as  it  is  mutually  destructive  of  the  other,  you  are 
entitled  to  take  it  into  consideration  when  you  are  considering  the  question 
of  this  man's  guilt  or  innocence. 

Anyhow,  Mrs.  Seddon  does  all  she  can  all  through  August.  She  had 
been  to  Dr.  Paul ;  there  were  five  visits,  I  think,  in  August.  I  may  not 
be  quite  accurate,  but  I  think  there  were  five  or  six  visits  in  August 
for  a  similar  complaint. 

Up  to  29th  August  Dr.  Paul  had  been  visiting  her.  What  does  this 
criminal  woman  do?  What  does  this  murderess  do?  When  she  has 
got  the  fly-papers  it  is  alleged  she  is  concocting  them,  and  that  he  or  she, 
or  both  of  them,  are  administering  this  poison.  What  does  she  do? 
She  sends  the  girl  for  Dr.  Paul  the  next  morning  when  this  woman  gets 
worse.  Does  she  know  that  Dr.  Paul  cannot  come  when  she  sends  for 
him?  When  Dr.  Paul  will  not  come,  because  he  is  so  busy,  she  says, 
"  Then  go  and  fetch  Dr.  Sworn,  our  own  doctor,  who  has  attended  on  me 
for  ten  years."  Dr.  Sworn  arrives,  I  think  it  was  late  at  night.  The 
diarrhoea  is  worse,  but  she  is  well  enough,  curiously  enough,  to  send  for 
Seddon  and  sign  for  her  annuity,  and  the  money  is  fetched  and  paid  her 
the  next  morning.  Then,  as  time  goes  on,  Dr.  Paul  is  sent  for,  and,  as 
I  pointed  out  to  you,  he  could  not  come  because  he  was  too  busy.  Then 
Dr.  Sworn  comes  in.  May  I  say  here  at  once  that  there  is  no  suggestion 
here  made  by  any  one  that  Dr.  Sworn  is  other  than  a  thoroughly  honest, 
competent,  and  reliable  medical  man.  There  is  no  attempt  of  any  sort 
or  shape  made  to  attack  Dr.  Sworn.  I  know  that  my  learned  friend 
would  not  for  a  moment  make  an  attack  against  him,  unless  he  had  ground 
for  it.  Dr.  Sworn  is  put  into  the  witness-box  by  my  learned  friend  as 
a  witness  of  credibility,  and  as  a  thoroughly  competent  and  reliable  medical 
man,  and  I  ask  you  therefore  to  accept  that  evidence  as  the  evidence 
of  a  man  competent  to  tell  the  truth,  and  who  does  tell  the  truth,  and, 
consequently,  a  man  who  would  not  be  a  party  to  hiding  anything  he  had 
seen.  He  says  she  is  suffering  from  epidemic  diarrhoea,  he  has  not  got 
any  poison  idea  in  his  mind,  and  he  has  got  no  doubt  about  it.  Curiously 
enough,  epidemic  diarrhoea  is  very  prevalent  about  this  time,  and  he 
instantly  recognises  it  as  a  case  of  epidemic  diarrhoea,  and  he  says  she 
must  be  well  looked  after,  and  Mrs.  Seddon  nurses  her.  This  woman  is 
only  her  tenant;  she  has  nothing  else  whatever  to  do  with  her,  but  Mrs. 
Seddon,  with  her  own  children  and  a  tiny  baby  in  her  arms,  goes  up  time 
after  time  to  nurse  her.  Is  that  the  sort  of  thing  a  woman  who  is 
poisoning  another  does?  On  3rd  September  he  comes  again,  and  on  4th 
September  he  comes  again.  She  is  a  little  better,  but  she  is  not  so 

u  305 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


much  better  as  Dr.  Sworn  expected  she  would  be.  Are  the  prosecution 
going  to  turn  round  upon  us,  and  say,  "  No,  of  course,  she  was  not 
better  because  you  were  giving  her  minute  doses  of  poison?"  That  had 
been  suggested  in  other  cases — that  has  been  suggested  in  every  poisoning 
case.  Are  they  going  to  suggest  it  here?  They  dare  not,  because  their 
own  witness  gives  them  away.  "  I  noticed  she  was  making  progress," 
says  Dr.  Sworn,  "  but  the  progress  was  not  sufficient.  I  was  making 
inquiries,  and  I  was  told  she  was  not  taking  her  medicine."  Whether 
you  believe  it  or  not,  medicine  is  sometimes  efficacious  in  a  case  of 
diarrhoea,  and  everything  that  will  soothe  the  mucous  membrane  of  the 
intestines  makes  a  very  valuable  adjunct  to  the  skill  of  the  doctor,  and 
makes  the  chance  of  curing  very  much  greater.  She  did  not  like  this 
medicine,  so  he  gave  her  a  chalky  mixture.  Why  has  not  the  medicine 
done  its  work?  She  seems  to  be  a  little  better,  only  a  little  better,  and 
if  the  medicine  had  done  its  proper  work  she  ought  to  have  been  very 
much  better,  but  Mrs.  Seddon  says,  "Oh,  I  cannot  get  her  to  take  her 
medicine."  What  did  the  doctor  say?  "  I  told  her  you  must  take  your 
medicine.  If  you  don't  take  your  medicine  you  must  go  to  the  hospital." 
Miss  Barrow  says,  "  Oh,  not  a  hospital — the  Seddons  will  look  after  me 
very  well. ' '  What  a  testimony  to  the  kindness  of  this  woman  !  The 
doctor  says,  "  Come,  you  must  take  it,"  and  he  gave  her  another  medicine ; 
he  recognised,  as  a  skilled  medical  man  would  recognise,  that  her  first 
medicine  might  be  nauseous  and  distasteful  to  a  person  who  was  suffering 
as  this  woman  was  suffering,  so  he  changes  this  medicine  and  gets  rid  of 
the  thick  milky  stuff,  and,  like  a  sensible  man,  he  says,  "  I  cannot  get 
her  to  take  that  medicine,  so  I  will  get  her  to  take  something  that  is 
more  palatable  to  her,"  and  he  gives  her  an  alkali  and  an  acid,  which, 
when  poured  together,  produce  an  effervescent  effect.  It  is  all  important 
that  it  should  be  drunk  during  effervescence. 

There  is  a  curious  little  piece  of  corroboration  here  from  the  little  boy, 
Ernie  Grant.  Nobody  would  suggest  that  that  little  chap  would  tell  you 
anything  except  the  absolute  truth,  as  far  as  he  knows.  Such  desperate 
straits  are  the  prosecutors  in  to  find  some  administration  of  this  poison 
to  this  woman  that  they  ask  the  boy,  "  Did  Mr.  Seddon  give  her  any 
medicine,"  and  he  replied,  "  Oh,  yes,  I  remember  him  giving  it  to  her 
once."  The  prosecution  at  the  Police  Court,  all  on  the  qui  vive,  then 
say,  "  There  is  a  valuable  piece  of  evidence.  It  shows  that  he  is 
giving  her  this  concoction  in  her  medicine."  Unfortunately,  that  falls 
very  flat  when  you  come  to  cross-examine  the  boy.  Not  knowing  the 
object  of  the  questions,  he  says,  "  Oh,  he  took  the  medicine  in  two 
glasses ;  it  was  just  like  water,  and  when  he  poured  one  from  the  other  it 
fizzed,  and  she  drank  it  when  it  fizzed."  You  could  not  put  Dr.  Willcox's 
solution  of  fly-papers  into  that  without  attracting  attention,  so  that  falls 
down.  The  only  other  positive  evidence  is  the  brandy.  That  is  the 
only  other  positive  evidence  of  any  sort  or  shape.  Mrs.  Vonderahe,  I 
think,  said  that  Seddon  said  he  gave  her  brandy  twice.  Seddon  says  he 
cannot  say  whether  he  gave  it  her  once  or  twice,  and  whenever  he  did  it, 
as  far  as  he  remembers,  it  was  the  end  of  the  bottle.  It  is  a  little  difficult 
to  see  how  that  minute  quantity  of  brandy,  with  the  woman  in  that 
extreme  state  of  exhaustion,  could  contain  enough  solution  of  fly-papers  to 
306 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.   H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

make  a  large  or  moderately  large  dose.  Those  are  the  only  two  pieces 
of  positive  evidence  in  any  sort  or  shape  of  any  administration  of  anything 
by  Mr.  Seddon  to  this  woman,  and,  as  far  as  the  second  dose,  the  brandy, 
is  concerned,  if  it  was  given  it  must  have  been  given  within  an  hour  or 
two  before  the  death,  and  therefore  it  can  be  absolutely  eliminated  from 
any  consideration  in  this  matter. 

If  you  remember,  I  was  dealing  with  the  events  of  4th  September. 
Dr.  Sworn  said,  "  I  told  her  if  she  did  not  take  her  medicine  I  should  have 
to  take  her  to  the  hospital,  and  I  sent  her  a  different  medicine."  Some- 
thing happened  on  that  afternoon — and  here,  again,  I  do  want  you  to 
remember — it  was  quite  a  chance  remark  that  came  from  Dr.  Sworn. 
You  are  judges  of  a  man's  demeanour.  You  cannot  think  for  a  moment 
that  Dr.  Sworn  was  endeavouring  to  help  these  people  in  any  sort  of 
way.  I  will  not  insult  you  by  thinking  that  any  one  of  you  believe  that 
Dr.  Sworn  would  go  one  inch  from  the  path  of  truth  to  help  these  people. 
He  said  one  of  the  most  vital  things  that  has  been  said  in  this  case.  I 
asked  him  whether  there  were  any  flies,  and  he  said,  "  I  never  saw  flies 
worse  in  any  room  in  my  life  than  were  in  that  room."  He  said  that 
they  were  probably  brought  there  by  the  stench.  Does  not  your  common 
sense  lead  you  to  think  so?  These  people  are  not  well-to-do;  they  do 
not  keep  a  servant ;  they  have  only  a  sort  of  half-witted  girl  down  at  the 
basement.  They  cannot  empty  things  as  cleanly  as  skilled  nurses  can, 
and  particles  of  things  undoubtedly  remain — certain  portions  of  these 
evacuations  that  are  passing  in  this  horrible  vomiting.  You  have  got  the 
same  thing  happening  every  summer  day.  If  there  is  anything  particu- 
larly filthy  or  foetid,  there  are  the  flies  like  eagles  on  a  corpse.  Dr. 
Sworn  gave  us  an  extremely  valuable  piece  of  evidence.  "  I  never  saw 
anything  so  bad  as  the  flies  in  that  room."  Nobody  knew  that  Dr. 
Sworn  was  going  to  give  that  evidence;  there  was  no  evidence  of  it 
before;  it  was  entirely  a  chance  answer  of  Dr.  Sworn's.  How  does  it 
come  in?  Mrs.  Seddon  has  given  her  evidence  that  so  bad  were  the  flies 
on  this  Monday,  the  4th,  that  is  the  day  which  Dr.  Sworn  was  talking 
about,  that  she  had  to  keep  fanning  Miss  Barrow  in  order  to  keep  the 
flies  off,  but  at  last  she  said  she  could  bear  them  no  longer,  and  she  must 
have  some  fly-papers,  and  then  she  said,  "  I  don't  want  those  sticky 
ones;  I  want  the  ones  you  wet."  I  said  this  three  or  four  days  ago, 
and  since  then  I  have  been  thinking  it  over,  and  I  should  like  to  say  it 
again  with  even  more  emphasis.  I  appeal  to  your  own  knowledge.  In 
a  sick  room  have  you  ever  seen  these  sticky  fly-papers,  which  are  hung 
up  in  the  form  of  a  ribbon,  or  laid  flat,  for  the  purpose  of  catching  flies? 
If  you  have,  I  ask  you  to  take  your  mind  back  to  them.  Do  you  not 
remember  the  abominable,  irritating  noise  of  these  unfortunate  flies  when 
their  feet  stick  to  these  sticky  fly-papers  1  If  there  is  one  thing,  I  submit 
to  you,  that  a  person  in  a  state  of  exhaustion  and  nervous  tension,  which 
would  naturally  follow  an  attack  of  this  kind,  could  not  bear,  it  would 
be  this.  They  would  say,  "  I  don't  want  those  with  the  irritating  buzz 
and  the  noise  of  these  flies."  To  say  nothing  of  another  thing  which 
you  know  perfectly  well  according  to  your  experience,  I  suggest  to  you, 
that  when  these  flies  escape  from  these  sticky  fly-papers  they  will  come 

307 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


towards  the  face  of  a  person  who  is  ill  in  bed,  and  stick  there  with  their 
sticky  feet. 

I  am  not  allowed  to  say  anything  about  it  myself ;  I  can  only  suggest. 
Can  you  imagine  any  state  of  things  more  horrible,  when  these  flies  are 
saturated  with  this  filthy  stuff  upon  which  they  have  been  feeding,  and 
as  we  all  know  are  the  source  of  every  possible  infection,  to  which 
fact  the  country  is  largely  waking  up?  The  medical  officer  of  health  is 
so  awakened  to  the  dangers  of  these  flies  from  this  point  of  view  that  he 
has  sent  a  circular  in  which  he  says,  "  Kill  the  fly."  That  was  only 
brought  to  your  notice  in  case  we  could  not  get  evidence  as  to  the  state 
of  the  flies ;  but  after  Dr.  Sworn's  evidence  it  did  not  become  material. 
Nobody  is  suggesting  that  fly-papers  were  bought  because  of  that  circular ; 
the  fly-papers  were  bought  by  Mrs.  Seddon  on  4th  September 
in  consequence  of  the  request  by  Miss  Barrow  that  she  should  get  some 
fly-papers  to  deal  with  the  fly  nuisance,  and  that  she  should  not  buy 
the  sticky  ones,  but  the  ones  that  you  wet.  One  of  your  body  asked 
yesterday  what  I  venture  to  think  was  a  most  pertinent  and  a  most  proper 
question.  Evidently  something  was  passing  in  your  mind  with  regard  to 
the  alleged  purchase  of  these  fly-papers  by  Mrs.  Seddon.  Gentlemen, 
there  was  no  need  for  Mrs.  Seddon  to  say  that  she  bought  them  if  she 
were  a  lying  and  dishonest  woman,  and  if  she  is  the  woman  who  committed 
this  foul  crime.  I  do  want  you  to  bear  this  in  mind.  I  am  sure  my  lord 
will  bear  it  in  mind  when  he  comes  to  deal  with  it.  There  was  no  need 
whatever  for  her  to  say  she  bought  these  fly-papers.  My  learned  friend 
who  got  Mr.  Meacher,  brought  him  here  and  called  him 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  did  not  call  him. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — You  brought  him  here.  I  am  entitled  to  assume 
that  my  learned  friend  must  have  thought  that  Mr.  Meacher  could  not 
give  them  any  assistance  one  way  or  the  other,  but  any  how,  what  we 
do  know  is  this,  that  there  was  no  evidence  in  the  possession  of  the  police 
that  Mrs.  Seddon  had  bought  fly-papers  anywhere.  I  venture  to  think 
it  even  came  as  a  surprise  to  my  learned  friend  when  he  heard  me  say 
when  I  opened  the  case  that  she  was  going  to  say  she  bought  fly-papers. 
I  do  not  think  you  realise  the  importance  of  this,  although  perhaps  my 
lord  does.  I  will  tell  you.  At  the  end  of  the  case  for  the  Crown  I 
submitted  there  was  no  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury  upon  which  they  could 
properly  rely.  That  is  a  question  of  law.  As  I  told  you  the  other  day, 
I  could,  if  I  liked,  have  said,  "  I  will  not  call  any  evidence,  I  rest  upon 
my  contention."  That  is  what  the  Court  of  Appeal  have  said  in  civil 
cases  ought  to  be  done.  They  have  held  that  if  counsel  contends  that 
there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury,  they  should  not  call 
evidence.  If  you  do  not  call  evidence,  then  the  question  as  to  whether 
there  is  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury  is  to  be  taken  upon  the  whole  of  the 
evidence  that  is  called.  My  submission  with  regard  to  the  unreliability 
was  that  the  unreliability  of  the  evidence  of  Maggie  Seddon  having  bought 
these  fly-papers  was  so  great  that  you  could  not  act  upon  it ;  but  I 
myself  supplied  the  necessary  evidence  of  the  purchase  of  fly-papers  in 
that  Mrs.  Seddon  has  herself  gone  into  the  witness-box  and  has  sworn 
that  she  bought  the  fly-papers  at  a  time  when  they  could  be  used  for  the 
purpose  it  is  suggested  they  were  used.  We  have  nothing  to  gain  by 
308 


Closing  Speech   on  behalf  of  F.  H.   Seddon. 

Kir.  Marshall  Hall 

doing  that,  yet  this  woman  of  her  own  free  will  said  that  she  bought  these 
fly-papers  at  Meacher's,  and  she  also  bought  a  pennyworth  of  white  pre- 
cipitate powder  and  Horlick's  malted  mixture.  Then  she  said,  "  I  want 
the  fly-papers  that  you  wet — not  the  sticky  ones.  I  want  two."  She 
put  down  the  2d.,  but  she  is  told  that  she  can  have  four  for  3d.,  and  with 
that  she  pays  3d.  and  takes  the  four.  Is  there  anything  more  probable 
than  that?  Is  it  not  the  sort  of  thing  a  man  would  say?  I  am  not  saying 
it  unkindly,  but  we  have  all  got  our  business  to  attend  to.  He  says 
"  I  can  sell  you  four  for  3d."  He  had  no  suspicion  that  they  were  wanted 
for  poisoning  purposes.  She  gets  four  for  3d.,  instead  of  paying  a  penny 
a  piece  for  them.  You  asked  a  question  upon  that.  There  were  other 
things  she  bought,  and  she  paid  for  them.  It  is  not  suggested  that  she 
put  down  the  2d.  only.  She  gave  an  order  for  a  big  quantity  of  Horlick's 
malted  mixture,  she  gave  an  order  for  the  white  precipitate  powder.  So 
far  as  the  fly-papers  were  concerned,  she  put  the  2d.  down,  and  she  said, 
"  Will  you  give  me  two?  "  He  said,  "  You  can  have  four  for  3d.,"  and 
she  takes  the  four.  She  goes  home,  and  she  first  of  all  puts  them  on  one 
plate  and  moistens  them,  and  then  she  puts  them  into  four  saucers  in 
Miss  Barrow's  room,  two  on  the  mantelpiece  and  two  on  the  chest  of 
drawers.  For  the  moment  I  will  leave  the  fly-papers  there. 

On  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  and  9th  September  Dr.  Sworn  called.  I  do 
not  suppose  if  you  searched  all  the  annals  of  poisoning  cases  you  would 
find  such  a  thing  as  that.  On  the  9th  he  gave  her  a  blue  pill,  which, 
you  will  probably  know,  is  a  cleanser  of  the  system,  and  will  tend  to  get 
rid  of  any  poisonous  matter  that  may  be  in  the  system.  On  the  10th, 
for  the  first  time,  Dr.  Sworn  did  not  call.  Now,  on  the  llth  conies 
the  incident  of  the  will.  We  have  no  evidence  except  the  evidence  of 
the  father  to  corroborate  the  story.  We  have  evidence  that  Miss  Barrow 
eaid  something  about  making  a  will ;  she  wanted  to  make  a  will  so  that 
the  property  which  belonged  to  Mrs  Grant  should  go  to  the  Grant  boy 
and  the  Grant  girl.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  her  own  property — she 
wanted,  if  possible,  having  bought  it  from  Hook,  to  leave  it  to  these 
children,  so  that  they  should  have  their  father's  and  their  mother's  pro- 
perty. She  makes  that  will.  Some  criticism  is  made  of  the  way  in 
which  the  will  is  drawn.  My  learned  friend  is  asking  you  to  assume,  not 
only  that  this  man  is  an  expert  poisoner,  but  that  he  is  an  expert  lawyer, 
knowing  the  meaning  of  all  the  terms  that  a  lawyer  would  know,  and 
that  the  mere  substitution,  or  the  putting  in  of  a  wrong  word,  would  not 
pass  the  whole  of  her  personal  effects.  There  it  is.  The  will  is  made. 
As  Mr.  Seddon  says,  "  It  was  nothing  to  do  with  me.  I  never  took  any 
benefit  under  the  will."  She  had  already  said,  a  long  while  ago,  that 
ehe  did  not  want  her  relations  to  benefit  under  the  will  at  all.  She  is 
making  a  will  dealing  only  with  the  things  she  had  bought  from  Hook, 
and  which  belonged  to  the  Grants  originally.  "  Well,"  says  Seddon, 
"  I  made  the  will  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  I  never  thought  it  would 
be  operative;  I  had  not  the  smallest  suspicion  that  this  woman  would  be 
likely  to  die,  and  that  the  will  would  be  acted  upon.  I  intended  to  take 
it  to  a  solicitor's  and  have  it  properly  drawn  up." 

There  it  is.  The  wife  and  the  father  are  present.  Against  the 
father,  I  suppose,  no  suggestion  of  any  sort  or  shape  is  made.  The  father 

309 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

witnessed  it;  he  says  that  it  was  read  over  to  her  and  she  seemed  to 
understand  it,  but  she  asked  for  her  glasses,  and  she  read  it  and  said, 
"  Thank  God,  that  will  do."  At  that  time  Mrs.  Longley  is  expected, 
and  she  did  arrive.  Here,  again,  there  is  a  point  which  may  be  small 
as  compared  with  some  others  ;  but  I  submit  to  you  it  is  a  point  that  you 
cannot  disregard  when  you  are  considering  the  guilt  of  these  people.  Mrs. 
Longley  is  Mr.  Seddon's  sister.  This  is  not  challenged,  and  therefore  I 
can  take  it  as  accepted.  My  learned  friend  most  courteously  said  we 
can  accept  this  statement  of  Mrs.  Longley  with  regard  to  it.  She  is 
their  witness.  Mrs.  Longley  said,  "  My  husband  had  written  up  a  few 
days  before  to  know  whether  we  might  come  up  and  stay  at  Tollington 
Park."  That  letter  had  arrived  upon  the  10th.  Then  Seddon  had  written 
back  and  said,  "  We  are  very  sorry  we  are  full  up,  but  still,  if  you  do 
not  mind  coming  and  taking  pot  luck,  we  shall  be  glad  to  have  you."  Is 
it  conceivable,  is  it  credible  that  a  man  and  woman  who  are  going  to 
commit  this  appalling  murder,  and  who  are  going  to  commit  it  with 
diabolical  skill  by  never  exceeding  the  dose  so  as  to  avoid  a  rash  coming 
out,  or  any  objective  symptoms  which  would  be  recognised  by  a  medical 
man,  should  invite  another  woman  and  child  into  the  house,  and  turn  out 
of  their  own  bedroom  in  order  to  accommodate  these  people?  I  submit 
that  it  is  incredible  that  any  man  could  have  done  that,  and  have  been 
intending  to  murder  at  the  time.  The  Seddons  gave  up  their  room  to 
them.  Now,  Dr.  Sworn  says — "  I  do  not  think  she  was  in  a  fit  state  to 
make  a  will  on  that  day.  I  never  thought  highly  of  her  mental  condition 
at  all."  He  did  not  call  oh  the  12th. 

Now,  I  come  to  the  crucial  day.  As  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  they 
all  went  to  bed  at  midnight  on  Tuesday,  the  12th,  and  on  the  morning  of 
the  13th  the  first  thing  we  know  of  any  importance  is  that  Dr.  Sworn 
came  at  11  o'clock.  He  found  her  weaker  on  account  of  the  diarrhoea, 
but  the  sickness  was  not  worse.  He  told  us  that  he  had  given  her  some 
other  medicine,  and  you  find  that  he  has  given  her  fresh  medicine  that  day, 
and  apparently  the  medicine  has  done  what  it  was  calculated  to  do — 
relieved  the  nausea.  The  diarrhoea  was  much  the  same,  and  he  said, 
"  I  thought  she  was  in  a  serious  condition."  My  learned  friend  cross- 
examined  him,  I  think,  a  little  unduly — I  will  not  say  unfairly,  because 
nothing  my  learned  friend  would  do  would  be  unfair — because  I  do  not 
think  he  appreciated  quite  what  Dr.  Sworn  meant.  What  he  said  was, 
' '  Anybody  who  is  ill  is  in  danger,  but  the  question  of  immediate  danger 
and  danger  is  a  question  of  degree  which  you  cannot  possibly  decide."  In 
most  cases  the  actual  proximate  cause  of  death  is  heart  failure ;  it  is 
brought  on  by  circumstances  which  tend  to  cause  that,  but  the  absolute 
cause  is  heart  failure.  Now,  if  a  person  is  in  bed  some  days  with  epidemic 
diarrhoea  and  her  constitution  has  been  rapidly  weakening,  and  she  is 
in  a  gastric  condition  brought  about  by  intemperance,  the  question  as  to 
the  immediate  moment  at  which  the  danger  becomes  imminent  is  impossible 
for  any  medical  man  to  tell,  because  it  depends  upon  things  you  cannot 
see.  It  depends  upon  the  power  of  the  heart  to  resist  the  pressure  which 
the  abnormal  condition  of  the  body  puts  upon  it.  If  the  heart  responds, 
and  responds  properly  the  heart  goes  on,  and  it  will  beat  itself  through 
that  particular  crisis,  but  if  the  circulation  and  the  vitality  have  been 
310 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.   Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

enfeebled  by  a  long  illness  the  heart  is  enfeebled  relatively  with  the  rest 
of  the  constitution,  and  therefore  the  heart  is  less  able  to  repel  an  insidious 
attack  of  this  kind  than  it  would  at  the  commencement  of  the  illness. 
So  Dr.  Sworn  says,  "I  could  not  say  what  the  condition  of  the  heart 
was.  There  was  no  excessive  temperature.  As  far  as  I  know,  her 
pulse  was  certainly  thin  and  flabby.  The  diarrhoea  had  weakened  her. 
The  vomiting  had  stopped  to  a  certain  extent.  I  thought  she  was  in 
danger,  but  I  did  not  think  she  was  going  to  die.  I  thought  she  would 
recover."  That  recovery  depended  upon  whether,  if  a  crisis  supervened, 
the  heart  was  sufficiently  strong  to  resist  it.  Here  the  crisis  does  come 
on  within  thirty-two  hours  of  the  time  the  doctor  saw  her.  The  con- 
stitution was  so  enfeebled  by  the  long  period  of  diarrhoea  from  which  she 
had  been  suffering  that  the  heart  which  is  attacked  has  not  got  the  strength 
to  repel  the  attack;  and  failure  of  the  heart  was  brought  on  from  that 
very  reason,  and  death  ensues.  You  get  death  ensuing  from  heart  failure, 
the  heart  failure  being  in  consequence  of  its  having  been  weakened  by  the 
long  course  of  diarrhoea  and  sickness  which  this  woman  had  gone  through. 
He  said,  "  I  thought  the  woman  was  in  danger,  but  not  imminent  danger.  I 
did  not  think  she  was  going  to  die  ;  I  thought  she  was  going  to  recover."  I 
can  see  nothing  in  that  to  quarrel  with.  He  said  that  it  all  depends  upon 
her  condition  inside,  which  he  could  not  diagnose.  I  think  we  are  justi- 
fied in  assuming  that  any  person  looking  at  this  particular  woman  on  this 
particular  day  would  assume  that  she  was  not  going  to  die ;  Dr.  Sworn 
said  that  he  did  not  think  she  was  going  to  die  before  he  saw  her  again 
when  he  was  coming  to  see  her  next  morning.  She  is  not  very  strong 
either  mentally  or  physically  on  this  day,  and  Dr.  Sworn  sends  her  down 
a  new  medicine  first.  He  sends  down  another  chalky  mixture,  which  is, 
of  course,  to  deal  with  diarrhoea.  It  is  of  no  good  for  the  sickness;  it 
is  to  do  with  the  diarrhoea. 

On  this  day  something  happened  which  was  not  thought  much  of  at 
the  time,  but  Mrs.  Seddon,  going  in  and  out  of  the  sick  room,  getting 
flannels  for  this  woman,  upset  one  of  these  fly-papers  on  the  mantelpiece, 
and  my  lord  put  to  her  by  way  of  examination,  not  cross-examination, 
perfectly  fairly,  certain  questions,  and  it  is  an  answer  which  she  gave  to 
my  lord  to  which  I  wish  to  direct  your  attention — "  I  broke  this  saucer, 
and  I  could  not  be  bothered  with  having  all  these  things  about — two  on 
one  plate  and  two  on  the  other — so  I  took  the  whole  four  and  put  the 
whole  four  in  a  soup  plate  and  poured  on  some  more  fresh  water.  I  put 
the  soup  plate  on  the  little  table  between  the  two  windows."  That  was 
within  three  feet  of  Miss  Barrow.  Nobody  has  ever  thought  anything 
of  it,  and,  although,  technically  we  are  not  on  behalf  of  the  defence  driven 
to  explain,  or  to  deal  with  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution,  unless  it  is 
evidence  that  presses  against  us,  any  human  being  who  has  considered  this 
case  will  probably  consider  for  himself — how  does  this  arsenic,  which  un- 
doubtedly was  in  the  body  come  to  be  there  ?  I  will  deal  with  the  question 
of  quantity  presently,  but  the  question  will  be,  how  did  it  get  there? 
That  will  be  the  question  which  I  must  elaborate  upon  presently.  I  am 
sorry  to  take  up  your  time  about  the  mass  of  matter  I  have  to  deal  with ; 
I  would  gladly  spare  myself  and  you,  but  I  must  do  what  I  have  got  to  do 

3" 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

on  behalf  of  the  client  for  whom  I  am  appearing,  and  I  am  afraid  I  shall 
have  to  take  some  little  more  of  your  time. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  do  not  want  to  be  disclosing  at  the  last 
moment,  so  to  speak,  what  the  object  of  those  questions  was,  so  I  will  tell 
you  now,  so  that  each  of  you  may  deal  with  the  object  I  had  in  view. 
The  evidence  is  that  Mrs.  Seddon  bought  those  four  fly-papers  on  4th 
September,  and,  as  I  understand,  took  them  to  the  house  to  use  forthwith. 
From  the  moment  when  they  first  began  to  soak  in  water  they  had  begun, 
as  fly-papers,  to  lose  their  arsenical  powers  by  being  in  the  water,  and 
each  time  the  water  was  renewed,  or  the  old  water  was  thrown  away,  as 
the  case  may  be,  the  distillation  of  the  water  would  become  weaker  and 
weaker.  Then,  finally,  when  the  four  fly-papers  were  taken,  and  if  the 
water  in  the  three  saucers  had  not  been  put  in  the  soup  plate  (there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  was)  you  would  get  those  long-used  papers  put  into  the 
soup  plate  with  clean  water,  and  it  would  be  for  the  jury  to  say  whether 
they  think,  under  those  circumstances,  that  anyhow  that  stuff  would  have 
been  strong  enough  to  produce  poisonous  effects  if  it  had  ever  got  down 
the  throat  of  Miss  Barrow. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  follow,  my  lord. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  shall  not  read  it  any  other  way  than  to  sug- 
gest certain  facts,  and  to  tell  them  why  I  put  certain  questions.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — It  is  for  you,  gentlemen,  to  interpret  the  evi- 
dence. You  heard  it.  I  am  merely  suggesting  to  you  what  that  evidence 
comes  to.  I  submit  to  you  that  it  comes  to  this,  that  Mrs.  Seddon  did  pour 
such  of  the  liquid  contents  as  there  was  in  the  three  saucers  which  were  not 
broken  on  to  the  soup  plate,  and  then  added  some  further  water  as  well. 
If  what  I  have  stated  is  challenged  in  any  way  by  my  learned  friend,  I 
do  not  know  whether  my  lord  would  permit  it,  but  whether  he  did  or 
not,  I  should  raise  no  objection  to  a  medical  man  being  called  to  deal 
with  the  point  at  any  stage  of  the  case. 

I  will  tell  you  what  I  suggest  is  the  real  truth  in  regard  to  the  arsenic 
in  this  case.  The  arsenic  in  this  case  is  not  in  the  form  of  ordinary  crude 
arsenic ;  it  is  arsenic  with  sodium,  which  is  very  soluble.  Assuming  that 
there  are  four  or  five  grains  in  each  paper — it  is  for  you  to  form  your 
opinion  as  to  that;  it  is  more  or  less  guesswork — this  would  be  partly 
dissolved  by  a  small  addition  of  water;  but,  if  you  add  more  water,  as  the 
water  evaporates,  the  arsenic  would  not  evaporate  with  it.  You  would 
get  the  return  of  the  arsenic ;  it  would  reprecipitate  into  the  paper,  and 
if  the  water  remained  on  that,  the  water  would  operate  more  readily  on  the 
arsenic  which  had  already  been  extracted  by  the  first  operation,  and  then 
would  also  again  reoperate  upon  the  paper  as  it  stood  and  extract  more. 
Assuming  that  there  were  four  papers,  although  some  portion  of  the 
arsenic  may  have  been  extracted,  taking  the  average  at  three  or  four  grains, 
taking  fourteen  grains  of  arsenic  in  the  papers,  a  very  small  quantity  of 
fluid  would  have  accounted  for,  at  any  rate,  two  or  three  grains,  which 
is  allowing  for  a  certain  amount  of  evaporation.  I  put  that  before  you. 
Dr.  Willcox  has  heard  what  I  have  said,  and  I  think  he  will  accept  that  as 
being  accurate. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  coming  to  the  night  of  the  13th.  Gentlemen, 
I  cannot  help  saying  to  you  that  it  is  impossible  to  overestimate  the  im- 

312 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

HP.  Marshall  Hall 

portance  of  the  events  of  that  night  when  you  come  to  make  up  your 
minds  affirmatively  one  way  or  the  other  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt 
of  these  two  people.  I  do  not  think  it  is  controverted,  because  I  under- 
stood it  was  not  going  to  be  controverted,  and  that  there  was  no  necessity 
to  call  corroborating  witnesses  from  the  Marlborough  Theatre — that  the 
statement  made  by  the  prisoner  that  he  was  that  night  at  the  theatre  is 
correct.  I  do  not  think  that  is  seriously  contested. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — No. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  understand  from  my  friend  that  it  is  not  con- 
tested. Therefore  we  can  leave  Seddon  out  of  the  question  altogether  as 
far  as  that  night  is  concerned  until  12.30  at  night,  or,  rather,  in  the  early 
morning  of  the  14th.  Now,  what  happened?  It  was  a  very  hot  night, 
we  are  told.  Mrs.  Seddon  and  her  sister-in-law,  Mrs.  Longley,  were 
standing  at  the  gate  looking  for  her  husband  to  return.  They  were  more 
or  less  in  and  out,  the  window  of  Miss  Barrow's  room  being  open.  Miss 
Barrow  had  been  complaining  of  pain,  and  I  think  some  flannels  had  been 
got  ready  for  her  even  before  this  time,  but  about  midnight  Mrs.  Seddon 
suddenly  was  startled  by  a  voice  crying  out,  "  I  am  dying,  I  am  dying," 
proceeding  from  Miss  Barrow's  room.  Mrs.  Seddon  goes  up  into  the 
room,  and  in  the  room  she  finds  Miss  Barrow  in  bed  with  considerable 
pain ;  she  promptly  gets  her  some  hot  flannels  for  the  purpose  of  relieving 
this  intense  gastric  pain.  That  takes  place,  as  far  as  she  can  say,  about 
midnight. 

About  12.30  Seddon  returns.  They  go  into  the  house,  and 
some  discussion  takes  place  between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  and  Mrs. 
Longley  as  to  what  the  real  condition  of  Miss  Barrow  is.  Apparently  Mrs. 
Seddon  tells  Mr.  Seddon  what  has  happened,  that  she  heard  this  woman 
cz*ying  out,  "  I  am  dying,  I  am  dying,"  and  Mrs  Longley  is  appealed  to 
and  asked  whether,  as  she  told  you  in  re-examination,  she  really  thought 
that  Miss  Barrow  was  so  very  ill.  She  said,  "  No,  I  do  not  think  so, 
because  anybody  so  ill  as  that  could  not  call  out  as  loud  as  that,  and  I 
think  she  is  making  herself  out  worse  than  she  is."  The  rest  of  that 
conversation  was  that  there  was  some  delay,  but  apparently  at  about 
one  o'clock  these  people  go  to  bed.  Mrs.  Longley  goes  to  bed,  and,  as 
far  as  I  know,  on  the  way  up  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  and  Mrs.  Longley 
look  in  to  see  Miss  Barrow.  Mrs.  Longley  tells  you,  if  I  recollect  the 
evidence  rightly,  that  she  did  not  see  Miss  Barrow's  face — she  was  then 
in  bed — and  therefore  she  could  form  no  opinion  from  the  personal  appear- 
ance of  Miss  Barrow ;  she  only  formed  her  opinion  from  the  loudness 
of  the  voice  which  she  had  heard  described  by  Mrs.  Seddon  when  the 
woman  called  out,  "  I  am  dying,  I  am  dying."  Now,  gentlemen, 
undoubtedly  Mr.  Seddon  and  Mrs.  Seddon  and,  as  I  say,  Mrs.  Longley 
do  go  up  before  they  go  to  bed,  and  Seddon  remonstrates  with  Miss  Barrow 
and  says,  "  Do,  for  goodness  sake,  leave  us  in  decent  quiet.  My  wife 
is  very  tired.  She  has  been  looking  after  you  for  a  long  time.  Let  us 
get  some  sleep."  I  do  not  think  there  is  the  smallest  suggestion  about 
Mrs.  Longley  being  present  when  this  poisonous  dose  was  administered. 
Anyhow,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  then  retired  to  bed,  and  upon  the  events 
of  the  night  after  that  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  dispute  at  all  between 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


the  prosecution  and  the  defence.     As   I   gather  they  went  to  bed   about 
one  o'clock. 

About  1.30  the  boy  calls  out,  "  Chickie  wants  you."  Mrs.  Seddon 
went  up  alone,  as  I  gather  it,  and  attended  to  Miss  Barrow  and  went  to 
bed.  I  suppose  she  attended  her  as  far  as  the  commode  was 
concerned,  and  so  forth.  It  is  important  to  remember  that  on  the  4th 
September  she  had  got  out  of  her  own  bed  and  complained  of  the  flies 
and  gone  to  the  boy's  room  at  the  other  end  of  the  passage. 

Of  course,  the  woman  would  have  to  be  going  in  and  out  of  bed  ; 
there  was  no  question  of  passing  motions  in  the  bed ;  the  commode  was 
at  the  side  of  the  bed.  I  do  not  know  whether  she  got  out  one  side 
of  the  bed  or  the  other.  It  is  a  big  bed.  It  is  shown  to  have  been  more 
used  on  the  opposite  side  than  that.  There  is  very  little  point  in  that, 
but  we  must  take  it,  knowing  what  we  do  of  her  condition,  that  she 
must  have  been  getting  out  and  in  of  bed  during  this  period  for  the 
purpose  of  using  the  commode,  because  there  is  no  suggestion  of  anybody 
attending  upon  her  with  bed  pans  or  anything  of  that  kind.  A  commode 
is  being  used  for  the  purpose.  That  being  so,  you  have  got  to  remember 
that  when  Mrs.  Seddon  goes  up  the  first  time  after  they  had  been  called 
she  goes  up  and  attends  to  her,  puts  some  flannels  under  her,  and 
possibly,  as  I  say,  helps  her  in  the  other  matter.  She  then  returned 
to  bed. 

About  three  o'clock — I  do  not  think  it  matters  exactly — but  within 
an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a  half,  the  boy  calls  down.  Mrs.  Seddon  goes  up 
again,  and  again  returns  to  bed,  having  put  some  more  flannels  on. 
Then,  about  four  o'clock,  the  boy  calls  again,  and  this  time  they  both 
got  up.  You  remember  the  conversation.  Mr.  Seddon  said,  "  Let  me 
go."  She  said,  "  Oh,  no,  I  must  go,  too;  it  is  no  good  your  going,  you 
cannot  do  what  is  necessary,"  and  they  both  go,  and  they  find  Miss 
Barrow  on  the  floor  and  the  boy  holding  her  up.  Then  what  happened 
was  this.  Miss  Barrow  told  Mrs.  Seddon  that  she  wanted  to  make  use 
of  the  commode,  and  for  decency's  sake  Mr.  Seddon  went  outside  the 
door,  whilst  Mrs.  Seddon  assisted  Miss  Barrow  to  the  commode.  Then, 
afterwards,  both  got  her  back  to  bed.  Miss  Barrow  was  anxious  for  Mrs. 
Seddon  to  stop.  Mr.  Seddon  did  not  want  her  to  stop,  but  eventually  Mrs. 
Seddon  sat  down  in  the  cane  chair  which  stood  at  the  foot  of  the  bed,  and  she 
used  an  expression  which  may  be  familiar  to  some  of  you ;  she  said. 
"  I  dozed.  I  was  sleeping  tired."  If  any  of  you  have  been  in  the  north 
you  know  what  that  expression  means.  It  means,  "  I  cannot  keep 
awake,  I  am  dozing  off."  She  said  very  fairly  to  the  Attorney  General, 
when  he  asked  her  the  question,  "  I  really  cannot  say  how  long  I  was 
in  that  condition,  because  I  was  dozing  off."  As  you  know,  it  is  very 
difficult  to  think  of  the  time  when  you  are  in  that  condition  ;  you  do  not 
know  how  the  time  goes.  What  she  does  say  is  this,  "  As  near  as  I 
remember  she  passed  into  a  sound,  peaceful  sleep,  and  I  remember  her 
beginning  to  snore ;  she  always  did  snore  more  or  less.  I  did  not  take 
any  notice  of  it;  it  was  a  natural  snoring."  My  learned  friend  asked  Mr. 
Seddon  what  was  the  necessity  for  him  to  stay.  He  said,  "  I  was  not 
going  to  leave  my  wife  all  alone.  I  stayed  there,  and  as  the  smell  was 
very  bad  I  stood  at  the  door  and  put  on  a  pipe  in  order  to  kill  the  smell ; 


Closing  Speech    on   behalf  of  F.   H.    Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

and,  as  far  as  I  could  in  the  very  faintish  light  I  endeavoured  to  read 
something  while  my  wife  dozed  in  the  chair."  As  far  as  we  know,  this 
must  have  taken  an  hour  and  a  half,  or  even  more.  As  far  as  Mrs. 
Seddon  is  concerned,  she  does  not  seem  to  have  heard  the  rapid  transition 
to  the  final  state  of  stertorous  breathing  which  you  have  heard  described, 
but  she  may  have  been  awakened  by  something,  very  likely  this  very 
noise  itself,  not  appreciating  what  the  noise  was,  and  Seddon  himself  says 
that  he  distinctly  heard  it,  and  he  reproduced  that  noise  which  anybody 
who  has  been  in  a  death-room  knows  immediately  precedes  death — heavy 
breathing  in  the  throat.  Then  he  goes  and  looks  at  her.  Breathing 
has  stopped  altogether,  and  he  does  what  I  venture  to  think  is  a  very 
proper  thing  to  do,  having  a  doubt  as  to  what  had  happened,  not  being 
^a  doctor,  he  raises  her  eyelids.  As  you  all  know,  that  is  where  you  get  the 
first  indication  of  death.  And  he  says — "  Good  God,  she's  dead."  That 
is  the  story  of  that  night. 

Now,  to  put  into  it  the  most  you  can  put  into  it,  Mrs.  Seddon  says 
that  certainly  once  on  that  night — she  does  not  remember  which  time  it 
was — he  gave  her  some  brandy.  Seddon  says  he  thinks  it  was  only  once, 
but  he  is  not  very  clear  about  it.  But  whether  it  was  once  or  twice  does 
not  much  matter.  Except  for  the  administration  of  brandy,  there  is 
no  vehicle  suggested  by  which  any  poison  could  have  been  given. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  woman  is  then  dead.  It  is  then  about  a  quarter 
or  half-past  six  in  the  morning,  and  here  is  this  man  left  there.  If  he  is 
a  guilty  man,  there  he  is,  having  succeeded  in  accomplishing  this  terrible 
murder.  He  has  murdered  this  woman.  Of  course,  I  know  that  there  is 
no  bound  to  the  marvellous  histrionic  powers  of  certain  persons.  But 
I  suggest  it  is  an  incredible  thing — the  actor  is  not  born  who 
would  have  the  marvellous  control  that  it  is  supposed  this  man  had — when 
he  suddenly  sees  the  pulse  of  life  cease — the  lifting  of  the  eyelids  to  find 
that  the  woman  he  has  murdered  is  in  fact  dead — this  marvellous  actor  to 
turn  round  and  shout,  "Good  God,  she's  dead!  " 

There  it  is  for  your  consideration.  If  you  believe  the  story,  there 
never  was  a  more  consummate  piece  of  acting  than  this  man  ejaculating 
in  this  way,  "  Good  God,  she's  dead  " — the  real  truth  being  that  he  has 
himself  killed  her  by  administering  a  fatal  dose  of  poison. 

Now,  gentlemen,  after  the  death  really  1  do  not  understand  that  any 
serious  suggestion  is  made  so  far  as  regards  Mr.  Seddon's  immediate 
conduct.  Obviously  the  first  thing  he  ought  to  do  is  to  go  for  a  doctor. 
Obviously  the  proper  doctor  to  fetch,  all  other  things  being  equal,  is  the 
doctor  who  has  attended  the  patient.  My  friend  with  great  force  has 
already  made  the  comment,  because  he  has  the  information,  that  there 
were  three  or  four  doctors  in  the  street  who  were  available — but  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Seddon  have  both  told  you  that  they  never  for  any  one  moment  during 
that  night  thought  that  this  woman  was  going  to  die.  They  only  thought 
that  she  was  in  the  same  condition  as  she  had  been  in,  and  not  in  any 
immediate  danger  of  dying.  They  never  thought  that  for  a  moment. 
Otherwise  it  is  obvious  that  if  they  were  so  immune  from  detection  as  is 
obviously  the  case,  for  their  own  protection  they  would  have  fetched  the 
first  doctor  they  came  to,  and  he  would  never  have  been  able  to  detect 
that  there  was  anything  wrong.  All  that  he  could  have  done  was  to  have 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

given  some  palliative — some  soothing  draught — and  probably  ordered  her 
hot  flannels  to  soothe  the  pain.  If  these  people  realised  that  she  was 
dying  it  was  their  duty  to  bring  the  nearest  doctor  they  could.  Mr. 
Seddon  said,  in  answer  to  a  question,  "  Of  course,  I  knew  the  doctor  was 
coming  in  the  morning,  and,  therefore,  not  thinking  that  she  was  dying, 
there  was  no  need  for  me  to  be  alarmed  about  it  at  all."  You  have 
heard  about  the  woman's  heavy  breathing  and  snoring.  We  know  she 
was  asthmatic,  and  we  were  told  by  one  of  the  doctors  that  she  suffered 
from  bronchitis.  That  would  probably  suggest  some  congestion  in  the 
bronchial  organs ;  therefore,  you  might  expect  more  snoring  from  her  than 
from  a  person  in  a  normal  condition.  All  these  things  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  death  from  epidemic  diarrhoea  or  syncope — heart  failure — in 
no  way  to  be  distinguished  from  death  by  arsenical  poisoning.  Accord- 
ing to  the  scientific  evidence,  death  from  arsenical  poisoning  is  produced 
in  the  same  way  except  that  it  is  the  arsenical  poison  which  induces  the 
attack.  The  attack  is  the  same  whether  it  come  from  gastro-enteritis 
or  arsenical  poisoning.  The  only  point  is  the  strength  of  the  heart.  If 
the  heart  does  not  resist  the  attack  you  have  death.  Gentlemen,  I  need 
not  trouble  to  labour  that  point,  but  as  far  as  the  actual  death  is  concerned, 
even  if  a  doctor  was  called  in,  nothing  could  have  indicated  that  this 
death  was  otherwise  than  what  I  suggest  it  was — a  death  from  epidemic 
diarrhoea. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  another  point.  The  moment  this  poor 
woman  is  dead  the  first  thing  Seddon  does  is  to  go  off  to  Dr.  Sworn.  His 
place  is  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes'  walk.  He  goes  off  for  Dr.  Sworn, 
and  asks  Dr.  Sworn  to  come  at  once.  He  tells  him  he  believes  that  she 
is  dead — a  very  important  piece  of  evidence.  Dr.  Sworn  says — and  it  is 
here  that  he  was  rather  pressed  by  my  learned  friend — "  I  was  not  sur- 
prised to  hear  she  was  dead — I  did  not  expect  she  was  going  to  die,  but 
having  regard  to  her  condition  when  I  had  seen  her  the  previous  day,  I 
was  not  surprised  to  hear  that  she  was  dead — and  dead  of  epidemic 
diarrhoea — and,  without  being  asked  for  it,  I  handed  him  a  certificate  of 
death." 

Now,  consider  for  a  moment.  This  is  in  the  north  of  London — 
Tollington  Park.  No  one  can  live  in  that  part  of  the  world  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  enormous  stride  that  has  been  made  in  the  hygienic 
disposition  of  the  dead  by  the  introduction  of  the  Colder 's  Green  Cre- 
matorium, which  rears  its  chimney  within  the  view  of  anybody — within 
a  drive  of  this  place,  ready  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  poor  as  well  as 
the  rich.  Gentlemen,  I  put  this  to  you  as  the  strongest  point  in  this 
case,  because  you  cannot  get  away  from  this.  If  this  was  a  murder, 
it  was  not  only  a  cruel  murder,  but  a  highly  skilful  and  deliberate 
murder,  compassed  by  a  highly  skilful  man  of  great  knowledge — a  man 
who  knew  the  way  in  which  arsenic  acted,  who  knew  the  effect  of 
arsenic,  who  knew  that  the  symptoms  produced  by  arsenic  were  the 
same  as  the  symptoms  produced  by  epidemic  diarrhoea,  and  who  took 
advantage  of  an  attack  of  epidemic  diarrhoea  to  produce  by 
administering  arsenic  symptoms  which  might  be  mistaken  for  those  of 
epidemic  diarrhoea.  Gentlemen,  it  is  incredible  that  this  man  would 
not  have  known  that  one  of  the  effects  of  arsenic  is  the  preservative 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Hr.  Marshall  Hall 

effect  upon  the  body.  What  I  am  going  to  suggest  to  you  is  probably 
known  to  every  man  who  knows  that  the  symptoms  of  the  one  and 
the  other  are  identical.  What  has  he  to  do?  He  has  only  to  get 
another  death  certificate,  and  he  can  at  once  have  that  body  cremated, 
and  all  evidence  of  the  arsenic  practically  destroyed.  I  do  not  know 
that  some  small  portion  might  not  possibly  remain  in  the  ashes,  but 
you  may  take  it  for  all  practical  purposes  the  evidence  of  arsenic  would 
be  entirely  destroyed.  This  man  must  have  known  two  things,  if  he 
was  the  skilful  person  that  is  suggested — that  arsenic  remains  in  the 
body,  and,  remaining  in  the  body,  preserves  it  from  decomposition  even 
if  it  is  buried. 

There  is  one  point  here  which  is  of  most  vital  importance  in  this 
case.  It  is  admitted  in  the  course  of  the  cross-examination  by  all  the 
doctors  that,  so  far  as  the  objective  symptoms — you  know  what  I  mean 
by  objective  symptoms — the  symptoms  which  appear  upon  the  outside — 
so  far  as  the  objective  symptoms  are  concerned,  not  only  are  the  symp- 
toms of  arsenical  poisoning  and  symptoms  of  epidemic  diarrhoea  identical 
during  the  course  of  the  illness,  but  after  death  on  the  body  as  it  lies. 
Unless  the  arsenic  has  been  administered  for  a  long  period  so  as  to 
produce  a  rash,  watery  eyes,  or  something  of  that  kind,  there  is  no 
objective  symptom  on  the  face  of  the  corpse  which  would  enable  anybody 
to  say  whether  that  person  had  died  of  epidemic  diarrhoea  or  had  died 
of  arsenical  poisoning.  Gentlemen,  if  you  are  going  to  assume  the 
intimate  and  minute  knowledge  as  against  these  two  people  for  the  pur- 
pose of  convicting  them,  you  must  accept  the  corrollary  that  they  also 
knew  the  other  great  facts,  which  are  well  known  facts  with  regard 
to  arsenical  poisoning.  This  man,  if  he  is  guilty,  has  committed  a 
most  skilful  crime,  a  crime  so  skilful  that,  whatever  the  verdict  of  this 
Court  will  be,  there  must  always,  to  all  eternity,  be  some  difference 
of  opinion  about  it.  Of  course,  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  you;  you 
have  to  make  up  your  minds  solely  upon  the  evidence  in  the  case;  but 
we  all  know  that,  whatever  the  result  of  a  case  of  this  kind,  there  are 
always  people  who  hold  different  opinions  afterwards.  I  say  if  this 
crime  has  been  carried  out  so  skilfully  as  has  been  alleged,  it  is  incred- 
ible that  this  man  should  not  have  taken  the  opportunity  to  have  the 
body  cremated.  Immediately  he  sees  Dr.  Sworn  he  is  given  a  certifi- 
cate; all  he  has  to  do  is  to  go  to  Dr.  Paul  or  any  other  doctor  and  say, 
"  I  want  to  cremate  this  body;  I  have  the  certificate  signed  by  the  doctor 
who  attended  the  woman;  will  you  give  me  a  second  certificate?"  The 
doctor  would  come  and  see  the  body  which  had  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses died  of  epidemic  diarrhoea ;  and  is  there  any  doctor  who  would 
have  hesitated,  having  regard  to  the  certificate  of  Dr.  Sworn  that  the 
woman  had  died  of  epidemic  diarrhoea,  to  give  the  necessary  second 
certificate  ? 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — You  are  saying  what  another  person  would 
have  done. 

Mr.  MARSHALL — I  say,  is  there  any  doubt  about  it?  Is  there  any 
doubt,  gentlemen,  that  any  medical  man  called  in  would  have  been  able 
quite  honestly  to  have  given  that  second  certificate?  I  put  it  entirely 
for  your  consideration,  or,  at  any  rate,  I  will  put  it  as  I  am  absolutely 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


entitled  to  put  it.  I  may  have  been  led  away  just  now  into  putting 
it  too  high,  but  this  I  am  entitled  to  put  to  you,  have  you  any  doubt 
that  Seddon  would  be  justified  in  thinking  that  that  would  have  been 
the  course  taken  by  any  second  medical  man?  I  put  it  in  a  round  about 
way  just  now,  but  that  is  the  way  I  intended  to  put  it. 

Now,  gentlemen,  he  comes  back  armed  with  a  certificate.  He 
meets  Mrs.  Rutt.  Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the  cross-examination 
of  Mrs.  Rutt  by  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Muir.  I  do  regret  that  my 
learned  friend  should  have  thought  it  necessary  to  cross-examine  as  lie 
did.  I  do  not  know  why  he  should  have  suggested  that  Mrs.  Rutt 
was  a  thief.  It  seemed  to  me  a  little  far-fetched  to  suggest  that 
because  she  had  been  accused  of  dealing  improperly  with  some  linen, 
therefore  she  should  come  and  commit  perjury.  She  gave  her  explana- 
tion of  the  circumstances.  You  will  remember  she  said,  "  We  were 
very  poor;  my  husband  was  out  of  work;  I  was  washing  some  linen;  I 
had  taken  some  linen  home  to  wash.  I  was  very  pressed,  and  I  pawned 
the  linen  to  get  something  temporarily  until  my  husband  was  able  to 
get  a  job.  The  moment  my  husband  came  back  I  would  have  taken 
it  out.  Unfortunately,  the  Seddons  came  back  before  I  got  it  out,  and 
I  was  charged  with  it.  I  have  never  denied  it;  they  threatened  to 
prosecute  me,  but  they  did  not  prosecute  me."  Gentlemen,  I  hardly 
think  that  that  is  suggestive  of  any  favour  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Rutt 
towards  these  people.  I  think  it  is  a  little  far-fetched  to  suggest  that 
because  of  that  this  charwoman  would  come  and  commit  perjury.  What 
is  her  evidence?  I  quite  agree  her  evidence  is  not  altogether  parallel 
with  the  evidence  of  the  others.  Would  you  expect  it  to  be?  I  know 
what  would  have  been  said  if  identically  the  same  story  had  been  told. 
But  it  is  a  curious  incident.  After  my  friend  had  done  with  her,  my 
lord  asked  her  a  question.  I  noticed — everybody  noticed — she  did  not 
notice  because  she  had  been  out  of  Court — but  it  was  obvious  to  any- 
body who  had  been  in  Court  what  was  the  purport  of  the  last  few  ques- 
tions that  he  asked  her.  She  is  asked  whether  the  £4  10s.  was  in  a 
bag  or  not,  and  she  said  it  was  not.  She  may  have  been  talking  of 
the  time  when  Seddon  pulled  it  out  on  to  the  bed.  To  clear  that  up 
she  was  asked  the  question,  and  she  says,  "  Oh,  yes,  the  cash  box  was 
on  the  bed;  he  put  it  on  the  bed  to  count  the  money."  Therefore  you 
see  that  on  this  most  important  point  we  have  her  corroboration  that 
although  the  box  was  taken  out  of  the  trunk  it  was  put  on  the  bed  for 
the  purpose  of  counting.  The  other  discrepancy  as  to  whether  the 
counting  took  place  after  the  body  was,  in  fact,  laid  out  or  before,  is 
a  matter  into  which  we  need  not  investigate.  There  is  that  small  dis- 
crepancy, such  as  it  is,  between  Mrs.  Rutt's  story  and  the  story  told 
you  by  the  two  Seddons.  After  all,  it  is  a  matter  of  small  import- 
ance. If  you  are  going  to  make  up  your  minds  that  this  man  had 
stolen  £216  and  any  other  money  that  might  have  been  in  the  house, 
or  that  his  wife  stole  it,  they  would  have  ample  opportunity  of  stealing 
it  before  this  period.  Therefore,  the  question  of  whether  £4  10s.  was, 
in  fact,  found  that  day  is  really  taken  very  little  further  by  the  evidence 
of  Mrs.  Rutt.  However,  that  is  their  case — that  they  found  £4  10s., 
and  £4  10s.  only. 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

Now,  gentleman,  I  come  to  this  point,  which,  of  course,  I  do  not 
disguise  for  a  moment  the  importance  of,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
prejudice.  The  prejudice  is  absolutely  overwhelming.  There  is  not 
a  man  in  this  Court  who,  assuming  these  people  to  be  absolutely  inno- 
cent of  the  charge  you  are  investigating  against  them — there  is  not  a 
man  in  this  Court  who  will  not  condemn  the  monstrous  meanness  and 
covetousness  of  Seddon  in  regard  to  this  unfortunate  woman's  funeral. 
I  do  not  care  a  bit  about  the  suggestion  of  his  having  stolen  money,  or 
the  suggestion  of  his  having  murdered  her  to  the  tune,  as  it  is  said,  of 
the  annuity — in  common  decency  he  ought  to  have  buried  her  properly 
and  well.  Gentlemen,  you  have  to  judge  everybody  by  himself;  you 
have  to  judge  the  individual  as  you  see  him.  I  am  not  going  in  any 
way  to  palliate  what  I  call  the  meanness  and  covetousness  of  this  man ; 
even  if  she  had  never  had  a  farthing  piece,  the  halo  of  sentiment  immedi- 
ately the  breath  was  out  of  the  body  ought  to  have  impelled  this  man 
to  have  given  her  a  decent  funeral;  there  is  no  question  about  that. 
The  real  danger  is  that  you  should  allow  it  to  have  too  much  effect  upon 
your  minds.  The  natural  feeling  is  one  of  repugnance  and  hostility. 
The  danger  is  that  you  should  allow  it  to  warp  your  minds  too  much. 
The  whole  of  that  business  with  regard  to  the  funeral  and  taking  12s.  6d. 
commission,  is  too  petty,  too  mean,  to  be  justified  in  any  way;  and  I 
am  indeed  sorry  to  think  that  there  could  have  been  any  man  so  mean- 
spirited  as  to  have  taken  advantage  of  that  opportunity  for  the  purpose 
of  making  12s.  6d.  on  the  funeral.  The  body  being  buried  in  a  public 
grave,  he  is  not  responsible  for  the  number  of  bodies  being  buried  in 
the  same  grave.  You  know  the  way  these  undertakers  talk;  we  know 
the  flippant  way  in  which  they  deal  with  death;  they  get  so  accustomed 
to  it.  You  will  remember  this  undertaker's  expression  about  the 
"  old  lady  "  and  the  "  good  turn-out,"  and  so  on.  Do  not  let  that 
warp  your  minds;  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  case  one  way  or  the 
other,  except  so  far,  that  if  this  man  is  a  guilty  man  it  makes  it  even 
more  incredible  that  he  should  have  called  attention  to  it  by  doing  these 
things.  However,  she  was  on  the  Saturday  buried  in  this  public  grave. 
I  have  one  little  comment  to  make.  Do  not  let  this  sentiment  weigh 
upon  you  too  much.  His  explanation  is  that  he  knew  that  Miss  Barrow 
had  a  vault  at  Highgate,  but  that  he  believed,  from  what  the  deceased 
had  told  him,  that  that  vault  was  full  up.  Anyhow,  the  Government, 
having  had  this  body  exhumed,  did  not  see  fit  to  bury  her  anywhere 
else;  they  buried  her  again  in  another  public  grave,  so  that  any  ques- 
tion of  sentiment,  however  it  reflected  upon  Seddon,  would  seem  to  reflect 
upon  His  Majesty's  Government,  who,  having  had  the  body  exhumed, 
re-buried  it  in  a  public  grave.  I  will  not  argue  it  further.  I  wish 
to  say  this  at  once.  I  tender  my  grateful  thanks  to  my  learned  friend 
for  the  way  in  which  he  put  this  point.  He  did  his  best  to  eliminate 
prejudice  from  it,  and  for  that  I  am  thankful. 

I  have  said  all  I  have  to  say  about  that  unfortunate  funeral.  I 
have  nothing  more  to  say.  I  have  not  shirked  it.  I  know  the  weight 
of  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  prejudice.  As  I  say,  it  is  one  of  those  great 
big  storm  waves  of  prejudice,  but  you  must  not,  because  of  that,  drown  this 
man  in  that  wave  of  suspicion  and  prejudice. 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


Now,  gentlemen,  I  should  like  to  pause  for  one  moment  to  consider 
this  position.  Either  this  man  is  guilty  or  he  is  innocent.  Let  us  for 
one  moment  take  the  hypothesis  that  this  man  is  guilty.  He  has  murdered 
this  woman ;  she  is  dead ;  he  has  got  a  death  certificate.  He  has 
arranged  with  the  undertaker,  and  the  body  is  to  be  removed  at  a  time 
suggested  by  the  undertaker,  not  by  him,  which,  I  venture  to  say,  with 
a  child  in  the  house  a  few  months  old,  was  a  perfectly  proper  suggestion. 
There  is  no  suggestion  of  friendship  between  Seddon  and  the  undertaker; 
it  was  a  perfectly  proper  suggestion,  and  no  inference  must  be  drawn  against 
this  man  for  allowing  the  body  to  go  out  of  the  house  that  evening  as 
suggested  by  the  undertaker,  especially  having  regard  to  the  fact  that 
Mrs.  Seddon  had  a  baby  a  few  months  old,  and  therefore  the  liability  to 
toxic  poison,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  would  be  very  serious.  As  I  say, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  undertaker,  the  body  is  out  of  the  house  and  the 
funeral  is  arranged  for.  What  would  you  expect  a  man  to  do  if,  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  of  the  prosecution,  he  had  first  of  all  murdered  the  woman 
and  then  robbed  her  of  a  large  sum  of  ready  money,  most  of  it  in  gold? 
Gentlemen,  you  know,  anybody  knows,  that  the  payment  of  a  large  sum 
in  gold,  any  sum  over  £10  or  £15  in  gold,  instantly  excites  the  suspicion 
of  the  person  to  whom  the  payment  is  made.  If  you  want  to  attract 
attention  to  the  payment  of  any  large  amount,  pay  it  in  gold  and  the 
person  you  pay  it  to  will  probably  never  forget  it.  Therefore,  if  you  are 
anxious  to  concentrate  attention  on  the  way  in  which  you  are  making  pay- 
ments you  will  make  them  in  gold,  and  the  person  you  make  them  to  will 
never  forget  it,  especially  if  you  happen  to  pay  a  sum  like  £90.  Gentle- 
men, that  is  the  first  thing  that  strikes  one  as  a  curious  thing  to  do,  if 
this  man  has  stolen  £200  in  gold,  and  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  there 
is  a  record  of  the  fact  that  this  woman  had  taken  this  money  in  gold, 
because  he  knows  that  it  comes  out  of  the  savings  bank,  and  he  knows,  as 
everybody  must  know,  that  the  savings  bank  make  an  entry  in  their 
waste  book  of  the  exact  form  in  which  the  payments  are  made.  What 
is  it  really  that  it  is  suggested  that  he  should  do?  He  has  got  over  the 
first  difficulty ;  he  has  got  over  the  death  certificate.  He  could  easily,  as 
I  have  pointed  out,  have  got  the  body  cremated  and  out  of  the  way.  He 
could  have  done  all  those  things ;  but  not  only  does  he  not  do  them — this 
skilful,  clever  poisoner — but  what  does  he  do?  According  to  the  evidence 
of  the  prosecution,  if  you  believe  it,  he  goes  and  gets  this  £200  in  gold 
that  he  had  stolen  from  this  woman,  he  takes  it  downstairs  past  the  safe 
in  his  bedroom  where  he  could  lock  it  up,  on  the  Thursday,  the  busiest 
day  of  the  week  for  him,  when  he  knows  that  his  assistants  are  coming  in, 
and  he  parades  it  before  all  those  people,  swaggering  about  with  this 
stolen  property.  Gentlemen,  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  the  fact  that 
the  £216  had  been  paid  out  of  the  savings  bank  to  Miss  Barrow  must,  at 
some  time  or  another,  be  known  to  somebody,  because  somebody  would 
have  a  record  of  it,  and  the  moment  this  woman's  death  is  known  they, 
knowing  that  she  had  this  little  money  within  a  short  period  of  time  in  all 
probability — at  least  they  would  be  entitled  to  assume  it — some  inquiry 
would  be  made  with  regard  to  it.  The  suggestion  that  he  should  go  and  get 
this  money  in  gold  and  parade  it  about  on  the  table  and  show  it  to  these 

320 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.   Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

men,  I  submit,  is  so  incredible  that  it  is  really  hardly  worth  serious  con- 
sideration. 

There  is  one  little  point  on  which  I  must  touch ;  it  is  not  a  very  big 
point;  I  do  not  think  much  turns  upon  it — the  point  with  regard  to  the 
letter.  He  says  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  relations.  If  you  look  at  the 
local  directory  for  that  period  you  will  find  the  address  of  the  Vonderahes 
is  31  Evershot  Road.  You  will  find  in  the  letter  which  Miss  Barrow  had 
written  to  him  about  her  relations  there  is  given  that  address.  This  man 
says,  "  I  did  write  a  letter;  I  kept  a  copy  of  it."  A  carbon  copy  of  it 
is  produced ;  it  is  obviously  a  carbon  copy,  there  is  no  question  about  that. 
' '  I  kept  the  carbon  copy ;  I  sent  Maggie  to  go  and  post  it ;  I  would  not 
allow  her  to  deliver  it  herself  because  the  door  had  been  slammed  in  her 
face."  That  is  the  evidence  upon  that.  It  is  not  quite  complete,  be- 
cause Mr.  Smith  admits  in  cross-examination  that  when  the  coroner  first 
began  the  inquest  he  did  call  upon  Mr.  Seddon,  and  he  remembered  per- 
fectly well  what  Seddon  said,  "  Why  didn't  one  of  the  relatives  come?  " 
Seddon  has  sworn  that  he  did  write  that  letter ;  and  he  had  produced  the 
copy. 

Now,  we  come  to  deal  with  the  question  about  the  money.  Gentle- 
men, I  want  you  here  for  a  moment  to  consider  this  evidence,  because  I 
venture  to  say  to  you  the  criticism  that  has  already  been  passed  upon  it 
by  Mr.  Seddon  in  the  course  of  his  cross-examination  is  a  perfectly  sound 
criticism.  You  heard  the  outburst  he  made  when,  in  answer  to  a  question 
put  to  him  by  the  Attorney-General,  the  Attorney-General  suggesting  that 
this  was  Miss  Barrow's  money,  he  said,  "  At  any  rate,  I  am  not  a  brutal, 
inhuman  degenerate ;  I  should  not  be  capable  of  doing  anything  of  that 
kind."  Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  you  particularly  to  follow  this  plan. 
Here  is  the  table  where  the  gas  jet  is ;  this  is  where  the  man  sits  to  count 
his  money ;  he  brings  it  from  there  to  there.  Mr.  Taylor  sitting  at  his 
desk  is  half-face  towards  the  back  of  that  table,  and  Mr.  Taylor  could  no 
more  see  what  was  going  on  on  that  table  without  turning  round  than 
he  could  see  what  was  going  on  there.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  Smith,  as 
Seddon  remarks,  could  see' it;  he  was  sitting  there;  there  is  his  chair 
looking  in  that  direction.  Now,  what  Mr.  Smith  says  is  really  very 
different  to  what  Mr.  Taylor  says.  Mr.  Taylor  said,  "  I  saw  at  least 
£200  worth  of  gold  loose  being  put  into  bags  by  Seddon."  Although 
he  said  it  was  £200  before  the  coroner,  he  says  now  it  must  have  been 
at  least  £400.  Before  the  coroner  he  fixed  £200 — why?  Because  when 
I  saw  what  his  evidence  had  been  before  the  coroner  I  asked  him,  and  he 
admitted  that  he  knew  that  £200  was  missed,  and  from  that  he  drew  his 
own  conclusion,  and  fixed  it  at  £200.  Mr.  Smith's  evidence  is  not  quite 
so  complete.  He  says  that  three  bags  were  filled;  he  says,  "  I  did  not 
see  what  was  in  them;  I  saw  it  was  gold,  but  I  saw  outside  the  three 
bags  about  £100  of  gold." 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — He  did  not  say  three  bags.  He  said  he 
saw  £200. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  understood  him  to  say  he  never  saw  what  was 

put  into  the  bags ;  he  assumed  they  were  full  of  gold ;  but  he  never  saw 

it.       All  the  gold  he  saw  was  about  £100.       Mr.   Smith  may  very  well 

have  seen  £100  of  gold ;    there  was  more  than  £100  at  that  moment, 

x  321 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


because  there  was  the  gold  that  had  been  taken  in  from  the  collectors, 
and  there  was  the  gold  that  this  man  had  in  the  safe.  You  will  remember 
the  evidence  that  was  given  with  regard  to  that,  and  perhaps  this  would 
be  a  convenient  moment  just  to  deal  with  the  evidence  dealing  with  the 
money.  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  really  know  that  it  is  necessary  to  deal 
with  it;  I  think  I  can  save  your  time  and  my  learned  friend's  time,  and 
everybody  else's  time  over  this,  and  I  should  be  very  glad  to  save  it  if  I 
can.  Perhaps  the  learned  Attorney-General  will  indicate  that  he  dis- 
agrees with  me  if  I  am  not  making  a  proper  and  fair  statement.  As 
I  gather  from  the  Attorney-General's  cross-examination,  if  you  admit  that 
this  man  had  £200  in  gold,  or  a  little  over  £200— £210  or  £220— in  the 
house,  and  if  you  admit  that  he  had  that  amount  in  gold,  all  the  payments 
in  gold  are  accounted  for.  If  you  do  not  admit  that,  it  is  a  question  for 
you,  and  it  does  not  matter ;  if  it  is  not  admitted,  it  is  no  use  attempting 
to  account  for  it.  I  will  let  my  learned  friend  go  into  it  if  he  likes  in 
detail;  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary.  I  submit  that  it  really  comes 
back  to  this.  That  evidence  is  absolutely  valueless  if  he  had  not  got  the 
£200  in  gold.  If  he  had  £200  in  gold,  the  only  effect  of  it  is  that  it 
will  account  for  the  payments  in  gold  made  at  or  about  that  period ;  I 
do  not  want  to  deal  with  it  in  minute  detail,  because,  after  all,  however 
minutely  I  dealt  with  it  in  detail,  with  the  exception  of  £10  which  Mr. 
Seddon  corrected — he  said  he  did  not  quite  know  as  to  the  £10 ;  I  am 
sure  you  will  not  hold  him  down  to  the  £10  at  this  distance  of  time — 
if  he  had  £200,  at  any  rate,  in  the  house  at  that  time,  at  the  death, 
legally  belonging  to  him,  you  can  account  for  all  the  payments  both  to 
the  savings  bank,  to  the  building  society,  and  anybody  else. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  agree. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — That  will  save  a  lot  of  detail.  My  learned 
friend  agrees  that  this  is  a  perfectly  sound  proposition  to  put  before  you. 
Now,  do  you  believe  that  he  had  £200  in  gold?  Upon  that  you  have 
only  his  evidence  and  the  evidence  of  the  three  men  who  deposed  that  in 
the  latter  part  of  1909  he  had  a  sum  varying  from  £250  to  £300  in  gold. 
I  leave  that,  only  asking  you  not  to  forget  when  you  come  to  consider 
the  evidence  of  these  men,  that  they  made  no  comment  at  the  time  on  the 
fact  of  this  man  having  this  amount  of  gold  in  his  possession ;  they  did 
not  think  anything  of  this  man  having  so  much  money  in  gold ;  and  it 
was  not  till  the  inquest  was  opened  and  they  heard  that  sum  of  money 
was  missing  that  they  come  forward  to  give  the  testimony  which  they 
eventually  gave. 

The  next  thing  we  have  to  do  with  is  the  letter  which  I  have  already 
dealt  with.  As  I  say,  it  is  no  good  my  dealing  with  the  question  of 
Maggie,  because  if  Maggie  comes  into  the  box  and  says  that  she  did  post 
the  letter,  and  she  remembers  Smith  tapping  her  on  the  shoulder,  you 
would  only  be  told  not  to  believe  her — that  she  is  a  liar — that  as  she  did 
not  tell  the  truth  to  Inspector  Ward  she  is  a  liar.  What  is  the  good 
of  putting  a  child  in  the  terrible  position  of  having  to  give  evidence  in  a 
case  where  her  own  father  and  mother  are  charged  with  murder?  I  put 
her  into  the  witness-box ;  it  was  open  to  my  learned  friend  to  cross- 
examine  her  upon  this  point ;  he  did  not  do  so ;  it  may  be  because  he 
thought  that  he  had  no  necessity  to  cross-examine  a  child  on  a  matter  of 
322 


Closing  Speech  on   behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

that  kind ;  and,  after  all,  anything  she  said  you  could  be  invited  to  dis- 
believe, because  she  is  interested  to  tell  a  lie  having  regard  to  the  relation- 
ship with  the  prisoners. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  shall  have  something  to  say  about  it  to 
the  jury.  I  should  say  it  is  an  extraordinary  position  that  when  my 
friend  puts  the  witness  into  the  box  he  does  not  ask  a  single  question 
about  this  point. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  quite  expected  my  learned  friend  would  say 
that,  and  I  reply  in  this  way.  I  say  that  under  the  extraordinary  relations 
that  exist  between  that  child  and  the  people  in  the  dock  it  was  not 
advisable  to  ask  her  more  than  was  absolutely  necessary.  I 
put  her  into  the  box  for  cross-examination.  I  said  so  at 
the  end  of  my  examination.  I  said,  "  I  ask  you  no  more ;  I  leave  you 
for  cross-examination."  Therefore  my  friend  was  entitled  to  put  any 
questions,  but  he  did  not  put  any  question  upon  this  point,  and  he  cannot 
go  any  further ;  he  cannot  comment  upon  the  fact  that  I  did  not  question 
her,  because,  as  I  say,  if  I  had,  you  would  have  been  called  upon  at  once 
to  say  she  is  a  liar,  because  Inspector  Ward  got  from  her  two  statements, 
one  of  which  is  true  and  one  of  which  is  false. 

Now,  I  come  to  another  matter — although  I  do  not  think  the  prejudice 
is  very  great  as  far  as  the  ring  is  concerned.  He  took  the  ring  to  have 
it  altered.  He  says,  "  I  did  not  want  to  have  it  altered  during  her  life, 
for  fear  that  she  would  see  it,  and  I  might  have  hurt  her  feelings."  Gentle- 
men, that  does  not  prove  that  he  is  a  murderer  nor  anything  of  the  sort. 
What  he  says  about  the  watch  does  not  prove  that  he  is  a  murderer.  The 
wife  says  she  did  not  want  to  wear  a  watch  with  a  cracked  dial  and  some- 
body else's  name  at  the  back.  There  it  is,  and  that  does  not  strike  one 
as  an  unreasonable  explanation.  However,  she  says  that  is  so;  we  cannot 
deal  with  what  was  in  her  mind.  Anyhow,  it  does  not  prove  that  she  was 
a  murderess,  because  she  wanted  to  have  this  name  of  somebody  else,  the 
mother  of  the  donor,  erased  from  it.  The  only  thing  about  it  is,  I  quite 
agree,  that  she  might  have  waited  a  little  longer,  and  that  it  was  rather 
indecent  to  deal  with  this  matter  so  soon  after  the  woman's  death.  That 
is  prejudice  again,  and  prejudice  which  I  do  not  think  you  will  attach 
much  weight  to. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  come  to  the  other  matters  to  which  I  have 
alluded  somewhat  vaguely  already,  the  buying  of  the  wreath  and  the 
lifting  of  the  coffin  lid  and  kissing  the  dead  woman.  I  will  leave  all  that 
for  my  friend  to  deal  with  afterwards.  Then  the  blinds  were  pulled  down, 
the  windows  are  wide  open;  every  opportunity  is  given — even  if  the 
Vonderahes  did  not  receive  a  letter — letters  do  not  always  go  straight  if 
they  are  re-directed  or  directed  by  the  Post  Office — there  may  be  such  an 
accident ;  the  Post  Office  does  occasionally  make  a  mistake ;  anyhow,  we 
do  know  this,  and  Mr.  Vonderahe  would  not  deny  it  in  cross-examination, 
that  his  boys  went  to  the  same  school  as  the  boy  Ernie  Grant,  and  he 
might  have  known  at  least  a  week  before  that  Miss  Barrow  was  dead. 
I  think  Mr.  Seddon  was  perfectly  entitled  to  assume  that  the  relations 
would  get  to  know  of  the  illness  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the 
Vonderahes'  two  children  went  to  the  same  school  with  Ernie  Grant. 

I  pass  over  the  funeral  on  the  17th.     Then  on  the  18th  cornea  the 

323 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


application  for  shares,  which  -were  paid  for  in  gold.  As  I  say,  it  is  the 
work  of  a  madman  if  he  is  a  murderer  and  has  robbed  this  woman  of 
£200  in  gold.  He  goes  to  a  building  society,  where  record  is  kept  of  the 
money  paid  in,  and  he  is  manufacturing  evidence  against  himself  in  the 
event  of  any  accusation  being  made  against  him.  You  know  the  explana- 
tion that  he  has  given  to  you.  My  learned  friend  says,  "  Why  did  you 
get  rid  of  your  £200?"  The  explanation  is  perfectly  obvious,  I  should 
think;  first  of  all,  owing  to  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow,  the  necessity  of 
providing  for  his  wife's  immediate  income  was  not  so  paramount;  he  had 
not  to  pay  this  annuity  to  Miss  Barrow,  and  therefore  the  money  would  be 
available  to  maintain  his  wife,  and  there  would  be  no  pressing  need 
for  money  in  the  house  as  there  was  before.  So  that,  instead  of  her 
having  to  take  possession  under  a  will,  or  something  of  that  kind,  if 
anything  happened  to  him,  he  could  make  her  a  safe  provision.  Further 
than  that,  he  says,  "  I  am  going  away  for  a  fortnight's  holiday,  and  I 
am  not  going  to  leave  £200  in  the  house."  It  is  for  your  consideration. 
He  is  answering  the  Attorney-General,  who  thought  it  very  strange  that 
£200  had  disappeared;  it  may  have  crossed  his  mind  that  it  was  not  safe 
to  leave  £200  even  in  a  safe  in  the  house,  and  that  therefore  it  was  better 
for  him  to  deal  with  it  as  he  does — manufacturing  evidence  against  himself 
if  he  is  guilty.  It  is  incredible  that  he  would  have  paid  this  money  in  gold, 
if  it  was  stolen,  that  he  had  got  from  Miss  Barrow's  possession. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  need  not  trouble  you  with  the  further  lot  of  three 
shares.  He  paid  for  them  with  no  incriminated  money  at  all;  the  money 
is  completely  traced  to  his  possession.  No  suggestion  is  even  made  about 
it.  The  Attorney-General  did  not  even  comment  on  it.  The  effect  of  his 
Buying  those  shares  is,  as  he  told  you,  practically  equivalent  to  levelling 
up  the  mortgage  in  the  same  building  society  upon  the  house ;  so  that 
instead  of  keeping  £200  in  the  house  he  buys  £180  worth  of  shares  in  the 
building  society,  which,  of  course,  would  be  set  off  as  against  the  mortgage 
held  by  the  building  society  over  this  particular  house. 

On  the  20th  Vonderahe  called,  and  he  only  sees  the  servant.  On  the 
21st  and  22nd  the  Mrs.  Vonderahes  called.  So  far  as  they  are  concerned 
nobody  can  say  that  their  attitude  was  very  friendly  either  to  Miss  Barrow 
or  to  the  Seddons.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  there  was  some  discussion  about 
Miss  Barrow's  manners  and  character,  because  Mrs.  Vonderahe  admits 
that  she  told  Mr.  Seddon  that  Miss  Barrow  once  spat  in  her  face.  She  said 
she  never  did  say  that  she  was  a  bad  wicked  woman,  and  that  a  public 
grave  was  good  enough  for  her.  Mr.  Seddon  says  she  did.  They  ask  for 
an  interval  so  that  Mr.  Vonderahe  can  see  her  husband.  Mr.  Seddon  says, 
"  I  am  going  away  for  my  holiday ;  there  is  a  copy  of  the  will ;  you  can 
take  that  to  your  husband." 

He  goes  away  a  day  or  two  afterwards  for  a  fortnight  to  Southend. 
He  comes  back  from  Southend.  Then  the  boy  Ernie  is  sent  round  to  the 
Vonderahes'  house  to  tell  them  Mr.  Seddon  is  back,  and,  he  thinks,  the  two 
Vonderahes  turned  up  on  the  8th  October.  It  appears  that  there  is  only 
one  Mr.  Vonderahe.  Then  Mr.  Seddon,  with  that  peculiar  mind  which  he 
seems  to  have,  rather  traded  upon  his  own  legal  position.  He  is  in  a  very 
difficult  position;  assuming  that  he  is  an  absolutely  innocent  man,  he  is  in 
a  very  difficult  position.  Here  he  has  granted  an  annuity  calculated  on 
324 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.   H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

something  like  twenty  years'  expectation  of  life,  and  the  life  has  genuinely 
and  naturally  fallen  in  within  twelve  months.  The  man  is  in  a  very 
awkward  position.  It  might  be  suggested  that  he  had  used  undue  influence. 
It  might  be  suggested  that  he  had  got  the  better  of  this  woman.  They 
do  not  know  of  the  letters  and  documents  which  were  found  there.  Mr. 
Vonderahe,  bringing  a  friend  with  him  as  a  witness,  goes  for  the  purpose 
of  cross-examining  Seddon  about  Miss  Barrow's  property,  and  Seddon  retires 
into  his  legal  position.  He  says,  "  If  you  are  the  next-of-kin  I  will  give 
you  any  information  you  want,  but  you  are  not  the  next-of-kin  " ;  he  adds, 
''  There  is  an  elder  one  than  you.  All  I  will  tell  you  is  that  she  sold  her 
property  in  order  to  get  an  annuity,  and  an  annuity  has  been  granted  to 
her."  He  did  not  say  that  he  had  granted  it;  he  says  he  never  said 
anything  about  purchasing  it  in  the  open  market;  but  even  if  he  had, 
he  would  have  been  so  far  telling  the  truth,  because  he  might  have  meant 
that  he  had  given  far  more  than  she  would  have  got  in  case  of  a  sale  in 
the  open  market. 

You  know  the  hostility  that  had  been  shown  by  the  Vonderahes.  It 
was  suggested  that  he  made  too  much  of  it  by  standing  at  the  door  when 
Mrs.  Vonderahe  was  leaving,  and  so  on;  anyhow,  he  did  not  want  to  have 
anything  more  to  do  with  them.  I  suggest  to  you  that  the  attitude  of  the 
two  Vonderahes,  their  attitude  of  attacking  Seddon  if  they  could  find 
any  opportunity,  justified  him  in  taking  up  that  position.  True,  he 
conceals  the  truth  by  not  disclosing  that  he  was  not  the  person  who 
granted  the  annuity ;  but  when  the  particular  question  is  asked,  "  Who  is 
the  landlord  of  the  Buck's  Head?"  he  says,  "I  am,  and  of  the  barber's 
shop  adjoining " ;  so  that  he  does  not  tell  a  direct  falsehood ;  all  he  does 
is  to  conceal  the  true  facts  as  to  the  person  who  had  granted  the  annuity. 
It  is  incredible  that  if  this  man  was  guilty  of  the  murder  of  this  woman, 
he  should  not  have  done  everything  he  could  to  pacify  these  people; 
incredible  that  he  should  have  held  them  at  arm's  length  and  said, 
"  Everything  has  been  done  through  the  stockbrokers  and  lawyers  in  a 
perfectly  legal  manner." 

On  llth  October  Vonderahe  or  somebody  communicated  with  Scotland 
Yard.  On  15th  November  the  body  was  exhumed.  During  this  time  Seddon 
had  plenty  of  money,  and  there  was  plenty  of  time  for  him  to  have  got 
away  and  gone  anywhere  he  liked;  there  was  no  evidence  against  him  at 
all;  they  do  not  arrest  him  until  4th  December.  On  15th  November  there 
is  the  exhumation  of  the  body  and  the  post-mortem,  and  Dr.  Spilsbury 
very  frankly  says  he  found  at  that  time  no  signs  inconsistent  with  the 
death  on  the  medical  certificate  from  epidemic  diarrhoea.  On  the  23rd 
there  is  the  inquest;  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  attend;  they  both  give  evidence; 
their  evidence  has  been  read  in  this  case.  On  29th  November  there  is  a 
further  examination  by  Dr.  Willcox,  and  we  got  the  evidence  which  I  have 
already  read  to  you  in  the  beginning  of  my  observations  in  this  case — the 
evidence  of  Dr.  Willcox  of  the  absorption  of  the  moderately  large  fatal 
dose  which  had  been  given  to  this  woman  probably  within  three  days  and 
certainly  not  less  than  six  hours  before  her  death.  That  is  what  it  comes 
to;  that  was  the  material  of  the  prosecution  at  that  time.  Upon  that,  on 
4th  December,  Mr.  Seddon  was  arrested.  When  he  is  arrested  he  is  told 
at  once  that  he  is  being  charged  with  murdering  Miss  Barrow  by  administra- 

325 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


tion  of  arsenic ;  and  lie  asks  at  once,  "  Has  any  arsenic  been  found  in 
the  body?"  Of  course,  he  is  very  indignant,  because  he  says  they  told 
him  they  were  going  to  arrest  his  wife.  You  heard  Inspector  Ward's 
evidence  as  to  the  conversation  between  him  and  Seddon,  and  you  heard 
Seddon's  account  of  it.  I  venture  to  think  that  the  outbreak  of  anger  on 
the  part  of  Seddon  was  quite  justified,  because  it  is  impossible  that  any 
man  should  be  such  a  cur  as  to  suggest  that  his  wife  should  be  arrested. 
Up  to  this  time  Ernie  Grant  had  been  in  the  house,  clothed,  fed,  and  looked 
after,  and  now  the  boy  had  been  taken  away  by  the  police.  There  was 
no  inquiry  and  no  evidence  of  any  sort  or  kind  brought  against  him.  This 
man  had  carried  out  his  bargain  which  he  said  he  had  made  with  Miss 
Barrow,  and  kept  the  boy  in  comfort  as  one  of  his  own  children,  and 
provided  for  him  decently  in  every  way. 

Now,  on  4th  December  this  man  is  arrested,  and  on  6th  December, 
in  consequence  of  exhaustive  inquiries  which  are  made  by  Mr.  Saint,  he 
gets  to  know  this  :  (of  course,  the  moment  a  man  is  charged  with  poison- 
ing, and  you  hear  from  the  medical  evidence  that  arsenic  has  been  found 
in  the  body,  anybody  with  any  sense  would  make  inquiries)  that  four  fly- 
papers had  been  used  in  the  room;  and  Mr.  Saint — I  do  not  think  wisely, 
but  that  makes  no  difference — suggests  that  the  girl  should  go  and  buy 
fly-papers  from  Price's.  She  takes  with  her  two  young  friends  that  she 
knows  at  school,  and  these  fly-papers  are  refused;  there  was  no  conceal- 
ment about  it;  the  police  knew  it;  they  were  watching  her;  and 
immediately  after  she  comes  out  the  police  officer  goes  in  and  buys  some 
papers,  either  there  or  at  the  adjoining  shop. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — You  must  not  say  that  the  police  watched 
her  when  she  went  there.  There  is  no  evidence  of  it,  and  it  is  not 
the  fact.  The  police  had  ascertained  from  Price,  from  the  inquiries 
they  were  making,  that  she  had  been  there  on  6th  December,  and 
she  admitted  the  purchase  of  fly-papers,  and  that  Price  had  refused 
them. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — And  so  expeditious  are  their  methods  that  th<i 
same  day  one  of  the  policemen  admitted  that  he  bought  fly-papers  at 
Price's  shop — the  same  day — so  that  they  knew  within  a  very  short 
time  of  the  attempted  purchase  of  those  fly-papers.  Anyhow,  on  the 
next  day  the  papers  are  purchased  by  Mr.  Saint  at  another  chemist's, 
and  there  is  no  question  about  that;  the  book  was  produced  where  the 
signature  had  been  made.  You  may  take  it  that  there  is  no  evidence 
offered  against  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Willcox  upon  this  point;  you  may 
take  it  that  those  papers  do  contain  various  quantities,  6  to  3  grains  of 
arsenic,  and  that  the  arsenic  can  be  extracted  in  the  way  indicated  by 
Dr.  Willcox.  On  llth  December  Dr.  Willcox  makes  the  examination 
of  the  hair.  On  the  14th  December  there  is  the  adjourned  inquest; 
then  on  the  5th,  19th,  and  22nd  December,  the  2nd,  19th,  and  22nd 
January,  and  26th  February  there  are  examinations  before  the  magis- 
trate. 

Now,  gentlemen,  will  you  please  follow  that  for  a  minute.        There 

are  ten  examinations  before  the  magistrate,  two  inquiries  on  the  inquest, 

and   up  to   the   2nd  February,    the  last  day,   there   is   not   one   tittle   of 

evidence  brought  forward  by  anybody  as   to  the  purchase   of  arsenic   or 

326 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  F.   H.   Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

arsenical  fly-papers  by  either  the  prisoner  or  his  wife  or  anybody  in  his> 
household.  We  know  now  from  Mr.  Thorley's  evidence  that  the  police 
had  been  up  to  Thorley's  to  ask  him  if  he  could  identify  somebody  who 
bought  some  fly-papers  from  him.  Thorley  said  that  the  police  came 
to  him  several  times;  he  told  them  that  he  could  not  identify  Maggie 
Seddon. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — No;  the  exact  words  were  that  he  did  not 
know  whether  he  could  identify  her  or  not. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — It  is  the  same  thing;  he  did  not  know  whether 
he  could  identify  her  or  not.  Anyhow,  he  has  not  identified  her,  an-1 
up  to  2nd  February  nobody  has  identified  her.  I  have  already  said 
something  about  the  means  of  identification.  I  say  that  our  means  of 
identification  in  this  country  are  deplorable.  Taking  down  a  number 
of  people  to  the  police  station,  a  number  of  people  drawn  haphazard 
and  put  together — I  do  not  know  whether  that  is  a  proper  way  of  identi- 
fication or  not.  Suppose  you  go  into  a  room  where  there  are  twenty 
women  and  you  are  asked  to  identify  one  of  them — I  mean  to  identify 
a  girl;  on  looking  at  these  twenty  people  you  see  a  girl  you  have  seen 
before  on  two  occasions.  Is  it  possible  for  the  human  mind  to  carry 
differences  so  accurately  as  to  remember  that  one  girl — who  accord- 
ing to  his  own  evidence  he  has  only  seen  once  in  his  shop — is  the  girl 
that  he  there  and  then  picks  out  on  2nd  February?  Anyhow,  on  that 
evidence  it  is  suggested  for  the  first  time  that  on  26th  August  fly- 
papers were  bought.  Apparently  if  they  were  bought  they  were  not 
used  unless  in  the  manner  alternatively  suggested  on  the  part  of  the 
Crown.  On  15th  January  Mrs.  Seddon  was  arrested.  On  2nd 
February  Maggie  is  taken  into  a  room  and  cross-examined  by  Inspector 
Ward,  and  as  a  result  of  that  and  the  identification  by  Thorley  the  case 
is  committed  for  trial  on  the  charge  of  wilful  murder  as  against  these 
prisoners. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  only  matter  that  I  have  to  deal  with  of  any 
importance  is  the  medical  evidence.  I  want  to  make  it  perfectly  clear 
to  you  how  I  put  it.  Gentlemen,  I  am  not  attacking  in  any  way  either 
the  genuineness  or  honesty,  or  the  ability  of  Dr.  Willcox.  Nobody 
who  has  anything  to  do  with  Dr.  Willcox  will  doubt  that  he  is  not  only 
probably  the  ablest  man  in  his  profession,  or  in  that  particular 
line,  but  one  of  the  fairest.  He  would  not  withhold  one  par- 
ticle of  evidence  which  he  thought  to  be  in  favour  of  the  prisoner 
merely  because  he  was  called  as  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  Crown.  I 
should  like  to  pay  in  public  that  tribute  to  Dr.  Willcox  because  it  is 
most  thoroughly  deserved.  But  what  I  do  complain  of  is  this.  We 
are  dealing  with  highly  scientific  evidence.  My  friend  says,  why  did 
you  not  call  scientists  to  put  forward  counter  theories?  Gentlemen, 
it  is  the  base  root  of  the  science  upon  which  the  deductions  are  founded 
that  I  complain  of.  I  just  want  you  to  follow  me  for  a  moment  in 
dealing  with  this  so-called  Marsh  test.  It  is  not  disputed  on  behalf 
of  the  defence  that  there  was  some  arsenic  in  the  body ;  that  is  not 
disputed.  What  is  submitted  is  that  the  calculation  by  which  Dr.  Will- 
cox arrives  at  the  amount  of  two  grains  of  arsenic  in  the  body  is  based 
upon  an  erroneous  factor,  and  that  the  error  is  due,  not  to  any  want 

327 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


of  science,  but  to  the  very  base  root  of  the  method  by  which  arsenic 
is  estimated.  Gentlemen,  I  want  you  to  follow  me.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  presently  you  will  be  allowed  to  see  these  mirrors.  Here  is  a 
question  of  the  human  eye,  trained  to  a  nicety  which  is  almost  beyond 
comprehension,  as  I  submit  to  you.  Here  are  a  range  of  mirrors  ranged 
from  one-fifth  of  a  millegramme  of  arsenic  to  one  five-hundredth  of  a 
millegramine.  You  all  know  that  a  millegramme  is  a  thousandth  part 
of  a  gramme,  and  a  gramme  contains  15  grains;  so  that  you  can  have 
some  idea  what  five-hundredths  of  a  millegramme  would  be.  It  is  some- 
thing so  infinitesimally  small  that  the  human  mind  cannot  possibly 
conceive  it.  I  suggested  to  Dr.  Willcox,  would  it  be  practically  impossible 
to  weigh  it  out?  He  says  it  is  not  impossible;  because  theoretically 
nothing  is  impossible,  but  practically  it  would  be  impossible,  because  you 
would  not  be  able  to  calculate  it  with  sufficient  nicety.  Now,  gentle- 
men, all  this  depends  upon  two  things.  It  depends  upon  the  skill  of 
the  scientists  to  be  able  to  compare  one  of  these  tubes,  the  tube  that  is 
made  from  the  incriminated  matter,  with  one  of  these  tubes  which  are 
made  upon  a  fixed  scale.  I  want  you,  if  you  can,  to  follow  it;  I  will 
put  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  What  are  called  these  test  mirrors 
are  made  by  a  highly  scientific  process  which  I  will  try  to  describe.  An 
incriminated  portion  of  something,  it  does  not  matter  what,  is  weighed 
out,  and  it  is  known  to  contain  a  certain  quantity  of  arsenic.  That 
incriminated  stuff  is  mixed  with  the  hydrogen  apparatus,  the  hydrogen 
apparatus  is  passed  into  one  of  these  tubes  which  is  brought  up  at  the  end 
with  an  opening — of  course,  lying  laterally  at  that  time — and  as  the  gas 
passes  through  it  the  tube  is  heated  by  a  Bunsen  burner,  and  as  the  result 
of  that,  if  there  is  arsenic  in  the  incriminated  substance  it  is  deposited 
in  these  tiny  films  upon  the  mirror.  For  the  sake  of  argument,  take 
the  one  three-hundredth  of  a  millegramme  of  arsenic;  it  is  put  into  a 
known  substance,  and  is  passed  through  this  process.  I  have  eliminated 
any  question  of  contagion  from  outside.  It  is  put  into  water;  it  is 
then  mixed  with  the  hydrogen  apparatus,  and  the  result  of  that  is  that 
the  minute  quantity  of  arsenic  converts  a  certain  amount  of  the  hydrogen 
into  arsenical  hydrogen,  and  that  is  deposited  in  the  form  of  a  mirror. 
Now,  where  the  fallacy  of  the  test  arises  is  this;  it  is  said  that  that 
always  makes  the  same  mirror;  that  if  you  put  one  three-hundredth  of 
a  millegramme  of  arsenic  and  then  pass  it  through  the  Marsh  test  you 
will  always  get  a  mirror  absolutely  identical.  I  am  not  disputing, 
scientifically,  that  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  there  is  arsenic 
in  the  incriminated  solution  or  not,  this  test  is  infallible  in  showing  that 
arsenic  does  in  fact  exist;  but  where  I  join  issue  with  the  test  is  this. 
There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  whole  of  the  one  three-hundredth 
of  a  millegramme  is  deposited  on  the  mirror.  Some  portion  of  the 
arsenic  may  escape  by  the  end  of  the  tube,  and  therefore  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  whole  one  three-hundredth  part  is  deposited ;  and  when 
you  are  making  a  calculation  which  involves  a  multiple  of  2000  in  order 
to  arrive  at  a  result,  the  difference  between  300,  400,  or  500  is  something 
enormous.  I  know  scientists  will  tell  you  that  I  am  wrong.  They 
will  tell  you  that  their  method  is  infallible.  They  will  tell  you  these 
mirrors  are  so  absolutely  exact  that  they  can  take  any  mirror,  and  at  a 
328 


Closing   Speech  on  behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

glance  of  the  eye  they  can  tell  what   it  shows  to   the  three-hundredth 
or  five-hundredth  of  a  millegramme.     They  cannot  go  any  higher. 

There  is  a  reason  why  they  are  obliged  to  employ  these  infinitesimal 
quantities  of  arsenic ;  because  if  you  employ  a  large  quantity  you  get  a 
mirror  so  black  as  to  be  useless  for  your  purpose.  Originally  the  Marsh 
test  was  a  qualitative,  not  a  quantitative  test;  originally  the  Marsh  test 
was  used  for  the  purpose  of  detecting  the  presence  of  arsenic,  but  detect- 
ing the  presence  of  arsenic  and  measuring  the  quantity  of  arsenic  are  two 
totally  distinct  things.  This  is  common  to  all  the  calculations.  I  agree 
that  in  certain  cases  the  multiplying  factor  is  very  small,  and  therefore 
the  margin  of  error  is  not  so  important ;  but  in  some  cases  the  multiplying 
factor  is  as  much  as  2000,  and  by  the  minutest  margin  of  error  you  get 
an  error  which  is  of  enormous  value  in  a  calculation  of  these  small  amounts. 
"What  I  say  is  this,"  Dr.  Willcox  says — and,  of  course,  it  is  his  honest 
belief — "  in  this  mirror  if  I  put  a  sixtieth  of  a  millegramme  of  arsenic  in 
the  solution,  the  result  of  that  is  that  it  shows  that  the  whole  of  that 
sixtieth  of  a  millegramme  of  arsenic  is  deposited  in  that  so-called  mirror." 
That  mirror  is  open  at  the  end ;  the  gas  must  escape ;  you  may  put  a 
porcelain  or  any  similar  cover  you  like  over  it;  if  it  is  on  the  porcelain 
cover  it  gets  out.  Therefore,  I  say  that  when  you  are  dealing  with  these 
minute  quantities  it  becomes  of  most  enormous  interest  to  ascertain  that 
these  things  are,  not  relatively,  but  absolutely  and  unmistakably  correct. 
Gentlemen,  you  will  presently  see  one  or  two  of  these  mirrors,  and  you 
will  see  for  yourselves,  you  will  be  able  to  compare  them.  Of  course, 
Dr.  Willcox's  trained  eye  has  already  told  you — and,  gentlemen,  do  not 
misunderstand  me,  Dr.  Willcox  honestly  believes  that  he  has  got  on  the 
mirrors  a  sixtieth  of  a  millegramme  of  arsenic,  but  he  cannot  prove  it  to 
me  by  ocular  demonstration.  It  is  theory,  that  is  all.  It  is  scientific 
theory  of  the  highest  possible  character,  but  it  is  not  the  sort  of  theory 
upon  which  a  man's  life  ought  to  be  put  in  peril.  So  far  as  this  body  is 
concerned  I  am  not  contending  that  there  is  no  arsenic  in  the  body  at  all. 
Mind  you,  of  the  two  grains  of  arsenic,  one  grain  is  made  up  by  a  calcula- 
tion of  what  is  called  muscle  fibre,  and  Dr.  Willcox  admits  that  that  is 
purely  a  matter  of  calculation.  You  cannot  get  at  that  for  this  reason, 
that  you  cannot  get  at  the  weight  of  muscle  tissue,  and  therefore  you 
have  to  estimate  it.  It  has  never  been  estimated  on  a  dead  body,  and 
therefore  you  have  to  deal  with  it  with  a  live  body,  and  with  a  live  body 
it  is  calculated  that  muscle  tissue  accounts  for  44  per  cent. — three-fifths 
of  the  total  weight  of  the  body ;  that  is,  the  total  weight  of  the  live 
body.  This  body  had  shrunk  from  something  like  10  stones  to  under 
5  stones,  so  that  there  was  a  wastage  of  half.  Now,  the  muscle  contains 
77  per  cent.,  and  the  bone  only  contains  56  per  cent.  ;  therefore,  suppose 
they  are  all  losing  moisture  proportionately,  and  at  the  same  rate,  you 
would  get  a  much  greater  loss  of  weight  in  the  muscle  than  in  the  bone. 
Therefore,  in  calculating  the  weight,  if  you  take  it  at  two-fifths,  you 
are  taking  it  much  too  high.  If  you  multiply  by  that  factor  the  amount 
that  is  shown  in  the  minute  quantity  of  muscle,  you  are  multiplying  it  by 
a  factor  which  is  absolutely  wrong.  Of  course,  in  the  case  of  the  liver, 
the  multiplying  factor  is  only  something  like  four  or  five,  and  therefore 
the  margin  of  error  is  not  so  great.  What  I  say  is  this,  and  what  I  ask 

329 


Trial   of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

you  to  find  as  a  fact  in  this  case  is  this,  that  there  ia  arsenic  in  this 
body,  that  it  did  not  cause  the  death,  that  she  died  of  gastro-enteritis — 
that  is,  that  she  died  of  epidemic  diarrhoea.  Possibly  the  condition  may 
have  been  aggravated,  but  that  there  is  no  evidence  upon  which  you  can 
satisfactorily  rely  that  the  arsenic  in  the  body  was  of  itself  sufficient  to 
cause  death,  because  you  cannot  rely  scientifically  on  the  quantity  alleged 
to  have  been  found. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  not  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  hair.  I  do  not 
care  a  bit  about  the  further  experiments  of  Dr.  Willcox.  I  might  just 
say,  without  for  a  moment  claiming  any  kind  of  triumph  for  myself,  that 
at  any  rate  we  shook  him  so  successfully  that  he  had  to  shelter  himself 
in  order  to  get  out  of  the  difficulty  with  regard  to  the  distal  ends  of  the 
hair  by  making  further  experiments.  Those  he  made  with  hair  taken 
from  the  body  after  death.  I  think  it  is  quite  possible  that  any  arsenic 
found  in  that  may  have  come  in  from  external  contact  with  the  blood- 
stained body,  and  it  would  be  consistent  with  the  taking  of  arsenic  over 
a  long  period  of  time.  I  drop  that,  but,  gentlemen,  this  point  does 
remain,  and  for  what  it  is  worth  I  am  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  it.  Dr. 
Willcox  has  frankly  admitted  that  in  the  whole  length  of  hair, 
some  12  inches  and  some  3  inches  long,  it  was  cut  from  the 
dead  body  in  the  coffin ;  and  he  does  find,  I  think,  that 
there  is  one-twenty-first  of  a  grain  per  pound  weight  of  hair. 
Gentlemen,  as  you  know,  there  has  been  a  most  exhaustive  Royal 
Commission  with  regard  to  the  poisoning  that  took  place  in  Manchester 
some  little  time  ago  from  arsenic  in  beer,  and  most  exhaustive  reports 
were  made  upon  that  question ;  and  the  balance  of  scientific  opinion  at 
the  moment  is  that  if  you  find  arsenic  in  the  hair  in  all  probability  there 
has  been  an  administering  of  arsenic  for  a  period  of  over  ten  weeks.  That, 
I  admit,  shows  to  you  that  there  has  been  at  some  time  some  arsenic  taken 
by  this  lady ;  but  it  becomes  immaterial — I  do  not  care  a  bit  about  it — 
because  I  come  down  to  this,  that  somehow  or  another  within  a  reasonable 
time  of  this  woman's  death  some  arsenic  found  its  way  into  her  body. 
Gentlemen,  how  did  that  arsenic  get  there?  It  is  for  the  prosecution  to 
prove  affirmatively  that  it  got  in  through  the  instrumentality  of  these 
people.  If  the  prosecution  fail  to  prove  that  they  fail  to  prove  their  case. 
I  have  not  got  to  discuss  it.  I  have  not  got  to  put  before  you  any  theory, 
or  suggestion  which  will  explain  it,  until  the  prosecution  have  proved  it. 
And  the  prosecution  in  this  case,  as  in  every  case,  must  prove  affirmatively 
to  your  satisfaction  that  this  arsenic  was  administered  by  both  of  these 
persons,  and  that  that  arsenic  caused  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow.  Other- 
wise, the  case  for  the  Crown  falls.  It  is  the  weakest  part  of  their  case 
that  is  the  strength  in  this  case.  If  you  take  the  opportunities  that  have 
been  proved  against  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon,  I  say  you  cannot  possibly  say 
that  you  are  satisfied  that  it  is  proved  to  your  satisfaction  that  either  or 
both  of  these  people  administered  this  arsenic  with  intent  to  kill.  It  is 
not  for  me  to  offer  any  explanation,  or  to  present  any  theory  to  you.  I 
do  not  suggest  that  that  poor,  half-witted  girl  ever  administered  arsenic 
to  this  woman,  not  for  a  moment ;  but  here  is  arsenic  in  the  house,  there 
are  those  fly-papers  in  the  house,  containing,  let  us  say,  sixteen  grains  of 
arsenic,  and  the  less  water  the  more  concentrated  the  solution.  You 
33o 


Closing   Speech  on   behalf  of  F.  H.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Marshall  Hall 

have  to  remember  that.  I  suggest  to  you  in  some  way  or  other  some 
portion  of  that,  not  sufficient  to  cause  her  death,  but  sufficient  in  the  state 
in  which  she  was  to  aggravate  the  symptoms  from  which  she  was  suffering 
— some  portion  by  some  means  or  other  got  into  this  unfortunate  woman's 
stomach,  and  so  into  her  body.  Gentlemen,  that  possibility  has  not  been 
eliminated  successfully.  The  prosecution  have  never  called  any  sufficiently 
reliable  evidence  to  prove  that  that  opportunity  was  not  taken  advantage 
of,  and  that  the  arsenic  was  not,  in  fact,  administered  in  that  way.  As 
I  say  here,  gentlemen,  the  benefit  of  every  doubt  must  be  given  to  the 
prisoner  when  he  is  accused  of  an  offence,  when  anything  short  of  complete, 
satisfactory  proof  is  tendered  by  the  Crown.  It  is  not  only  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt  that  this  man  is  entitled  to,  but  he  is  entitled  as  of  right  to 
demand  at  your  hands  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  because  the  prosecution  have 
failed  to  prove  their  case. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  practically  done.  I  have  attempted  no  high 
flights  of  forensic  eloquence.  I  have  attempted  to  deal  with  this  as  a 
business  proposition,  addressing  twelve  business  men.  I  have  only  dealt 
with  the  evidence  before  you — the  evidence  against  my  client.  I  submit 
that  that  evidence  is  entirely  unsatisfactory.  The  presumption  of 
innocence  has  never  been  removed ;  the  prisoner  is  entitled  as  of  right 
to  your  verdict  of  acquittal,  and  you  must  say  he  is  not  guilty  because 
he  has  not  been  proved  to  be  guilty. 

Gentlemen,  I  often  think,  when  I  look  at  the  great  figure  of  Justice 
which   towers    over    all    our  judicial  proceedings,   when    I    see   the    blind 
figure  holding  the  scales — I  often  think  that  possibly  the  bandage  over 
the  eyes  of  Justice  has  a   twofold  meaning.        Not  only  is   it  put  there 
so  that  the  course  of  Justice  should  not  be  warped  by  prejudice  or  undue 
influence  one  way  or  the  other ;   but  sometimes  I  think  it  is  put  there  so 
that  those  who  gaze  should  not  see  the  look  of  infinite  pity  which  is  in 
the  eyes  of  Justice  behind  that  bandage,  the  look  of  infinite  mercy  which 
must  always  temper  justice  in  a  just  man.       Gentlemen,  in  that  hand  of 
Justice  are  held  two  scales,  and  you  are  the  people  to  watch  and  decide, 
as  the  inanimate  hand  of  Justice  holds  those  scales  aloft — it  is  you  who 
decide  what  is  the  result  of  the  weighing.       The  one  scale  is  the  scale 
of  the  prosecution,  the  other  is  the  scale  of  the  prisoner.     The  prosecution 
come,  under  your  careful  and  acute  observation,   and  they  begin  to  put 
into  the  scale  of  the  Crown  the  bits  of  evidence  which  are  to  weigh  and 
to  count  to  make  that  scale  go  downwards  to  a  lower  level  than  the  other 
and  convict  the  prisoner  of  the  crime  of  which  he  is  charged.     That  scale 
is  empty  when  they  begin.     You  must  take  away  from  your  eyes  any  faulty 
vision  that  you  may  have,  caused  by  prejudice  or  suspicion.       You  are 
sworn  to  do  your  duty  according  to  the  evidence,  and  upon  your  oaths 
you  must  give  your  verdict,  and  you  must  let  no  faculty  lie  dormant  in 
the  most  minute  examination  of  the  line,  the  balance  of  those  two  scales. 
But  remember  this.     The  other  scale  is  net  empty.     The  prisoner's  scale 
has  something  in  it  invisible  to  the  naked  eye,  invisible  to  anybody  who 
examines    it   however   skilfully,    however    scientifically ;    because    in    that 
prisoner's  scale  is  a  thing  called  the  Presumption  of  Innocence,   which, 
if  the  scales  go  level,  is  to  bump  the  prisoner's  scale  down  and  outweigh 
the  scale  on  the  other  side.     You  cannot  see  that  presumption  of  innocence. 
If  in  your  judgment  the  balance  of  those  two  scales  is  so  fine  and  so  minute 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Marshall  Hall 


that  you  cannot  in  your  mind's  eye  and  in  your  mental  vision  say  to 
yourselves  in  which  of  those  sides  the  span  is  going  to  fall,  remember 
that  in  the  one  scale,  the  prisoner's  scale,  is  the  invisible  weight — the 
presumption  of  innocence,  which,  when  the  scales  are  level,  must  inevit- 
ably bump  that  span  to  the  ground. 

Gentlemen,  the  great  scientists  who  have  been  here  have  told 
us  much  of  the  marvels  of  science,  and  of  the  deductions  that 
can  be  made  from  science.  There  is  one  thing  the  scientists  have 
never  yet  been  able  to  find,  never  yet  been  able  to  discover,  with 
all  their  research,  and  with  all  their  study,  and  that  is,  how  to 
replace  the  little  vital  spark  that  we  call  life.  Upon  your  verdict  here 
depends,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  the  life  of  this  man.  If  your  verdict 
is  against  him,  that  vital  spark  will  be  extinguished,  and  no  science  known 
to  the  world  can  ever  replace  it.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  my  responsi- 
bility is  ended.  To  the  best  of  such  abilities  as  I  possess  I  have  put  this 
man's  case  fairly  and  strongly  before  you.  I  have  endeavoured  to  put 
it  in  the  fairest  light  that  I  can  put  it  from  his  point  of  view ;  but  yours 
is  the  responsibility.  Not  that  you  are  to  be  afraid  of  it.  If  your 
oaths  constrain  you  to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty,  let  no  consideration 
of  the  consequences  hinder  you — in  the  name  of  Society,  find  that  verdict 
if  you  are  constrained  to  find  it.  But,  gentlemen,  regarding  the  con- 
sequences of  your  verdict,  I  may  remind  you  that  they  are  irrevocable. 
I  invite  you  to  say,  on  all  this  evidence,  having  heard  it  all,  and  listened 
to  it  all,  and  weighed  it  all,  you  are  constrained  to  come  to  one  verdict, 
and  one  verdict  only — that  the  Crown  have  not  proved  the  case  against 
Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  and  that,  therefore,  your  verdict  must  be  a 
verdict  of  Not  Guilty. 

Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  Mrs.  Seddon. 

Mr.  RBNTOUL — May  it  please  you,  my  lord — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it 
is  now  my  duty  to  address  you  on  behalf  of  Mrs.  Seddon,  and  I  need  hardly 
eay  that  I  rise  to  do  so  with  a  very  heavy  feeling  of  responsibility.  For  even 
the  ablest  and  most  experienced  advocate  could  not  discharge  a  duty  of 
this  kind  without  experiencing  considerable  anxiety,  without  the  fear  being 
ever  present  in  his  mind  lest  he  should  leave  unsaid  something  that 
ought  to  be  said,  or  should  use  some  argument  that  ought  to  be  omitted. 
Nevertheless,  I  for  one,  am  deeply  thankful  that  the  time  has  now  come 
when,  having  all  the  evidence  before  you,  I  can  deal  with  it  on  behalf  of 
Mrs.  Seddon,  and  can  claim  from  you  on  her  behalf  a  verdict  of  Not  Guilty. 
It  may  be  thought  that  in  using  that  expression  I  am  speaking  somewhat 
too  confidently,  that,  were  my  experience  of  the  uncertainties  of  criminal 
administration  greater  than  it  is,  I  should  hesitate  before  using  an  expres- 
sion which  only  the  strongest  confidence  can  justify.  But,  gentlemen,  I 
venture  to  hope  that  you  will  not  think  that  confidence  unjustified  when 
you  come  to  examine  the  evidence  for  yourselves,  and  look  at  the  case  of 
mere  suspicion  that  has  been  raised  against  her,  and  ask  yourselves  whether 
on  that  evidence  you  dare  to  accept  the  conclusions  of  the  prosecution. 

I  do  not  think,  fortunately,  that  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  detain 
you  more  than  a  very  short  space  of  time.     I  only  want  to  deal  with  this 
case  now  as  it  stands  against  Mrs.   Seddon,  and  against  her  alone,  as  if 
there  were  no  question  of  any  one  else  being  charged  along  with  her. 
332 


Gervais  Rentoul,  Esq. 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  Mrs.   Seddon. 

Mr.  Rentoul 

My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  in  his  address  on  behalf  of  her 
husband  has  dealt,  and  dealt  exhaustively,  with  many  matters  affecting  the 
wife  about  which  I  should  have  otherwise  been  called  upon  to  say  a  word. 
He  has  urged  upon  you  many  considerations  in  favour  of  Mrs.  Seddon,  and 
in  favour  of  the  assumption  of  her  evidence  which  I  now  ask  you  con- 
fidently to  accept.  I  am,  of  course,  perfectly  satisfied  to  leave  all  those 
matters  in  the  exact  position  in  which  they  have  been  left  in  the  observations 
of  my  learned  friend,  and  I  trust  therefore  that  you  will  not  think  that 
I  am  trying  to  evade  any  point  in  this  case  if  I  abstain  from  repeating, 
and  possibly  weakening  by  repetition,  whatever  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  has  so 
clearly  and  forcibly  said.  Therefore  I  leave  out  of  consideration  altogether 
any  criticism  of  the  medical  evidence  that  was  given  by  Dr.  Willcox  under 
cross-examination,  which  might  go  far,  I  suggest  to  you,  to  raise  a  doubt 
in  your  minds  as  to  whether  Miss  Barrow  did  really  die  from  the  effects 
of  arsenic  or  not.  I  am  willing  to  assume  for  the  purpose  of  my  argument 
to-day  that  she  did.  Even  on  that  assumption,  let  us  consider  the  case 
for  a  moment  against  Mrs.  Seddon,  and  see  exactly  what  it  amounts  to. 
You  will  no  doubt  have  noticed  that  to  the  vast  majority  of  the  witnesses 
called  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  it  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  put  any  ques- 
tions whatever  in  cross-examination.  That  was  because  the  vast  proportion 
of  these  witnesses  never  even  mentioned  the  name  of  Mrs.  Seddon,  much  less 
made  any  suggestion  against  her  of  any  kind  whatsoever.  The  learned 
Attorney-General  told  you  in  opening  that  this  case  was  one  that  rested 
upon  evidence  purely  circumstantial.  That  men  and  women  have  been 
found  guilty  upon  evidence  purely  circumstantial  is  true,  but  it  was  only 
when  the  chain  was  so  complete  as  not  only  to  make  the  guilt  possible 
or  even  extremely  probable,  but  when  the  chain  in  every  link,  in  every 
single  part,  was  so  complete  and  strong  as  to  make  a  verdict  of  guilty  the 
only  one  that  any  single  juror  could  possibly  arrive  at.  You,  gentlemen, 
now  hold  the  life  of  this  woman  in  your  hands.  Perhaps  no  one  of  you 
was  ever  placed  in  such  a  position  before,  and  doubtless  you  hope  and 
pray  that  you  may  never  be  similarly  placed  again. 

Now,  what  are  the  circumstances  as  affecting  Mrs.  Seddon?  She  lived 
in  the  house  where  Miss  Barrow  died.  She  did  much  of  the  house  work 
and  practically  all  the  cooking;  she  had  free  access  to  Miss  Barrow's  room 
at  all  times.  Miss  Barrow  died,  if  you  will,  of  poison,  how  administered 
no  one  can  possibly  tell;  Mrs.  Seddon  could  have  helped  to  commit  this 
crime;  but  is  there  anything  in  all  that  on  which  you  could  find  a  person 
guilty  of  petty  larceny,  much  less  murder?  Thought  out  and  planned  for 
weeks  or  months,  and  you  will  not  fail  to  recollect  that  wilful  murder, 
carefully  planned  and  horribly  executed,  is  the  charge,  and  the  only  charge, 
against  her. 

Now,  what  is  it  that  you  are  asked  to  believe  with  regard  to  this 
woman?  That  Mrs.  Seddon,  thirty-four  years  of  age,  who  all  her  life  has 
lived  blameless,  honoured,  faithful  as  a  wife,  as  a  mother,  and  as  a  friend, 
respected  by  all  who  knew  her,  is  suddenly  transferred  into  one  of  the 
most  inhuman  monsters  that  ever  stood  in  a  criminal  dock ;  that  she  watched 
over  the  dying  agonies  of  her  victim  without  one  spark  of  pity,  without 
one  quiver  of  remorse;  nay,  more,  that  she  actually  prolonged  those 
agonies  by  the  application  of  remedies  in  order  to  relieve  the  pain  for  the 

333 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Rentoul 


time  being;  that  she  was  ever  ready  with  hot  flannels  and  other  means  of 
affording  temporary  relief  to  the  agony  that  she  herself,  according  to  the 
case  for  the  prosecution,  had  brought  on  by  the  poison  she  had  administered. 
And  then,  after  the  death,  without  any  need  to  do  so,  that  she  had  gone 
and  kissed  her  victim  as  she  lay  in  her  shroud,  and  finally  placed  a  wreath 
of  flowers  on  her  coffin.  Was  ever  a  jury  asked  for  a  more 
incredible  verdict  than  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  this  case  would  be?  You, 
gentlemen,  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing  Mrs.  Seddon  giving 
her  evidence  in  the  box.  You  no  doubt  will  have  formed  your  own 
conclusions  with  regard  to  her.  You  have  heard  the  frank  and  open 
way  in  which  she  answered  every  question  that  was  put  to  her.  You 
heard  the  evidence  of  other  witnesses  such  as  Mrs.  Longley  and  others, 
who  spoke  of  the  tireless  and  devoted  manner  in  which  she  nursed  Miss 
Barrow  all  through  her  fatal  illness,  and  that  in  their  opinion  she  was 
absolutely  wearing  herself  out  by  the  kindness  and  devotion  that  she 
was  showing  to  this  poor  lady.  Is  it  on  facts  like  these  that  you  are  going 
to  find  this  woman  guilty  of  murder?  Are  acts  of  kindness  and  watchful 
solicitude  of  a  nurse  to  be  turned  into  evidence  of  murder?  Surely,  gentle- 
men, to  effect  such  a  transformation  as  this  it  would  need  a  motive  that 
should  be  absolutely  overwhelming.  Now,  what  is  the  motive  in  the 
case  of  Mrs.  Seddon?  The  only  motive  that  can  be  alleged  by  the  prosecu- 
tion is  an  indirect  one.  I  took  down  some  words  that  the  learned  Attorney- 
General  used  in  the  course  of  this  case,  so  suggestive  did  they  strike  me. 
When  speaking  of  the  motive  that  Mrs.  Seddon  might  have  had  in  Miss 
Barrow's  death,  he  described  it  as  "  the  interest,  whatever  it  was,  that 
she  had  in  Miss  Barrow's  death."  That  was  as  high  as  he  could  put  it,  an 
indirect  motive;  that,  presumably,  as  the  wife  of  the  male  prisoner,  she 
would  share,  to  some  extent,  in  the  money  that  he  might  gain  by  Miss 
Barrow's  death;  that  is  the  sole  motive  that  could  be  alleged  against  her. 
Now,  where  is  the  evidence  by  which  this  motive  is  supported?  The  evidence 
that  is  produced  is  that  on  certain  occasions  she  cashed  bank  notes  that 
were  traced  once  into  the  hands  of  Miss  Barrow.  On  twenty -seven  occasions 
in  all — and  you  will  not  forget,  gentlemen,  that  there  has  never  been  any 
denial  of  this  on  the  part  of  Mrs.  Seddon;  the  instant  the  point  was  raised 
she  has  admitted  it  in  the  frankest  manner  from  the  very  outset — on 
twenty-seven  occasions  she  cashed  bank  notes  that  once  belonged  to  Miss 
Barrow.  Now,  the  suggestion  that  the  prosecution  makes  with  regard  to 
these  notes  is  that  they  were  notes  that  she  or  her  husband  had  stolen 
from  Miss  Barrow,  and  that  Mrs.  Seddon  was  cashing  them  with  a  guilty 
knowledge,  and  that  that  was  the  reason  why  on  a  few  occasions  she  gave 
a  false  name  and  address.  But  if  she  had  a  guilty  knowledge  she  must 
have  had  a  guilty  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  whole  of  the  notes.  It  is 
not  open  to  the  prosecution  in  this  case  to  pick  out  any  particular 
note  here  and  there  and  say  she  had  a  guilty  knowledge  with  regard  to 
that  and  not  with  regard  to  the  other.  She  must  have  had  a  guilty 
knowledge  with  regard  to  the  whole  of  them.  Then,  if  that  is  so,  do  you 
think  it  credible  that  in  eighteen  of  the  instances,  two-thirds  of  the  whole, 
she  should  go  and  cash  them  at  shops  where  she  was  perfectly  well  known 
as  a  customer  for  years,  where  there  was  no  need  for  her  to  give  any  name 
and  address  whatever?  Then,  with  regard  to  the  other  instances  when 
334 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  Mrs.  Seddon. 

Mr.  Rentoul 

she  cashed  nine  notes  and  gave  a  false  name  and  address,  you  have  heard  her 
explanation  in  the  box,  and  I  suggest  to  you  that  it  is  a  perfectly  reasonable 
and  credible  one.  If  she  wanted  to  cash  these  notes,  and  they  were  stolen 
notes,  is  not  it  more  likely  that  she  would  have  taken  them  to  some  place 
miles  away  from  where  she  lived,  perhaps  to  the  West  End,  and  cash  them 
in  some  of  the  big  shops  there,  where  she  might  naturally  have  thought 
there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  tracing  them?  But,  no,  even  on  the  occasions 
that  she  gave  a  false  name  and  address,  she  took  them  to  the  shops  that 
she  would  naturally  be  patronising  in  the  neighbourhood  where  she  lives. 
And  what  is  the  explanation  she  gives  you  with  regard  to  these  notes  1  That 
Miss  Barrow  from  time  to  time  gave  her  a  note  and  asked  her  to  cash  it. 
That  at  the  first  place  she  -took  it  to  they  asked  her  for  name  and  address. 
As  you  know,  gentlemen,  it  is  not  necessary  at  all  to  give  a  name  and 
address  when  you  are  cashing  a  Bank  of  England  note;  it  passes  as  legal 
tender.  I  know  that  some  business  houses  do  make  a  practice  for  their 
own  convenience  of  asking  for  the  name  and  address.  It  was  not  her  note ; 
she  gives  the  first  name  that  comes  to  her  head,  the  common  name  of  Scott, 
choosing  a  number  at  random  in  the  road  in  which  she  lately  lived,  18 
Evershot  Road.  Is  not  that  a  perfectly  reasonable  explanation?  The 
Attorney-General  cross-examined  her  at  great  length,  but  he  was  not  able 
to  shake  her  on  that  point.  And  also  you  will  not  forget  that  these  notes 
were  cashed  over  a  period  of  eleven  months,  and  that  the  last  note  was 
cashed  some  time  before  Miss  Barrow's  death. 

Do  you  imagine  it  possible  that  Mrs.  Seddon  could  have  stolen  these 
notes,  or  that  these  notes  could  have  been  stolen,  and  that  Miss  Barrow 
for  nearly  a  year  would  never  have  detected  it — so  careful  a  woman  as  she 
was  1  We  know  the  way  in  which  she  was  always  counting  her  money.  Is  it 
conceivable  that  these  notes  could  have  been  stolen,  and  she  never  to 
have  missed  them  or  know  that  they  were  gone?  There  was  no  conceal- 
ment, as  I  say,  about  the  notes  from  the  very  first;  but,  assuming  it  as 
high  as  you  like  against  this  woman,  if  it  is  evidence  of  anything,  assume 
all  the  guilty  knowledge  you  like,  if  it  is  evidence  of  anything  it  is  evidence 
of  larceny,  and  certainly  not  of  murder,  but  I  suggest  to  you  that  it  is 
evidence  of  larceny  on  which  no  jury  in  the  world  would  convict  her  even 
of  that  offence. 

Then  passing  on  from  that  there  is  the  question  of  the  purchase  of 
the  fly-papers.  There  has  never  been  any  concealment  with  regard  to 
that  from  the  very  start.  Mr.  Saint,  the  solicitor  acting  on  behalf  of 
both  these  prisoners,  was  told  of  the  incident  from  the  very  start.  No 
attempt  has  ever  been  made  to  conceal  it.  And  surely  the  story — I  need 
not  deal  with  it  further;  it  has  already  been  dealt  with  at  considerable 
length — the  story  that  Mrs.  Seddon  told  to  us  with  regard  to  the  purchase 
of  the  fly-papers  is  a  perfectly  reasonable  and  probable  one.  It  is,  of 
course,  immaterial  who  actually  purchased  the  fly-papers,  if  they  were  in 
the  house ;  it  is  immaterial  even  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  prosecution ; 
but  Mrs.  Seddon  comes  forward  and  says,  "  I  bought  them  at  the  request 
of  Miss  Barrow."  Another  point  is  that  Mrs.  Seddon  accompanied  Miss 
Barrow  to  the  Finsbury  and  City  of  London  Savings  Bank  to  draw  out  the 
money.  You  have  heard  her  explanation  with  regard  to  it,  and  I  need  not 
deal  with  it  further  now.  Then  we  come  to  the  time  of  the  illness. 

335 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Rentoul 


Now,  the  suggestion  of  the  prosecution  is  that  these  people,  owing  to 
a  deeply-laid  scheme,  were  poisoning  Miss  Barrow  during  the  time  of  her 
illness.  If  you  think  it  is  so,  is  it  credible  that  they  would  have  allowed 
Mrs.  Longley  and  her  daughter  to  come  up  on  a  visit  to  their  house?  If 
that  is  so,  surely  they  would  have  invented  every  excuse  to  put  her  off,  when 
to  their  knowledge  they  were  poisoning  with  arsenic,  a  poison  which  causes 
most  terrible  internal  pain,  and  when  the  victim  would  probably  scream 
aloud  in  her  agony.  Do  you  suppose  that  that  would  be  the  time  these 
people  would  choose  to  have  visitors  in  the  house?  Would  not  they  rather 
invent  any  excuse  to  put  her  off  and  prevent  her  coming?  Instead  of  that, 
they  say,  "  Oh,  yes,  we  have  got  an  old  lady  in  the  house,  but  come  along 
and  take  pot  luck  if  you  like."  Then  we  know  that  after  the  death  the 
blinds  were  pulled  down  and  the  windows  opened.  No  concealment  of  any 
sort  or  kind.  We  know  that  the  "Vonderahes  lived  200  yards  away.  Could 
they  imagine  for  one  moment  that  the  Vonderahes  would  not  be  passing 
the  house  time  and  again,  and  notice  the  blinds  down,  and  make  inquiries 
as  to  who  had  died  in  the  house?  You  know,  of  course,  I  need  not  emphasise 
it,  that  before  you  can  convict  this  woman  the  prosecution  has  to  banish 
every  reasonable  doubt  from  your  minds.  My  submission  to  you  has  been, 
and  still  is,  that  so  far  as  this  woman  is  concerned,  on  the  evidence  that 
has  been  called,  there  should  be  no  doubt  whatever,  and  that  you  should 
unhesitatingly  acquit  her.  But  we  know  that  sometimes  juries,  in  their 
anxiety  to  do  complete  justice,  do  hesitate,  do  have  doubts,  and  therefore 
one  wants  to  be  prepared  to  meet  them. 

If  you  have  a  doubt  it  is  your  duty  unhesitatingly  to  acquit  her,  and 
I  will  tell  you  why  you  should  have  a  doubt,  and  where  there  is  a  great 
and  irresistible  doubt  in  this  case,  and  that  is  in  the  minds  of  the  prosecu- 
tion. I  rely  on  the  presence  of  the  Attorney-General  in  this  case  as  a 
fact  more  important  than  any  other  that  could  be  adduced  in  favour  of 
the  prisoner;  because,  remember  these  prisoners  are  no  great  or  celebrated 
people.  It  is  not  a  question  of  some  great  conspiracy  or  some  great 
revolutionary  movement;  it  is,  according  to  the  prosecution,  a  sordid 
,  murder,  committed  for  gain  and  gain  alone,  alleged  to  have  been  committed 
by  a  small  insurance  agent  and  his  wife.  And  yet  we  have  here  for  the 
prosecution  an  array  of  counsel  such  as  I  believe  has  not  been  seen  together 
in  a  murder  case  since  these  Courts  were  built.  So  great  was  the  doubt 
in  the  minds  of  the  prosecution  that  it  was  deemed  absolutely  necessary 
to  bring  down  the  Attorney-General  in  order  that  he  might  lend  to  the 
prosecution  of  these  prisoners  not  only  the  weight  of  his  great  ability, 
but,  vastly  more  important  still,  the  weight  of  his  position  as  chief  law 
officer  of  the  Crown.  Who  will  venture  to  say  in  face  of  facts  such  as 
these  that  the  prosecution  have  not  doubts  amounting  almost  to  fear  in 
proceeding  with  this  trial?  And,  if  they  have  doubts  after  sifting  every 
atom  of  evidence,  after  having  behind  them  the  whole  detective  forces  of 
the  Crown,  are  not  you,  the  jury,  entitled  to  doubt — nay,  bound  to  doubt? 
Why,  of  course  you  are,  and,  if  bound  to  doubt,  or  even  able  to  doubt, 
then  bound  to  acquit  without  a  shadow  of  hesitation. 

I  do  not  want  to  deal  in  any  detail  with  the  evidence,  because  that 
has  already  been  done  by  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Marshall  Hall.  There  are, 
however,  two  points  on  which  I  would  like  to  say  a  word,  two  incidents 
336 


Closing  Speech  on  behalf  of  Mrs.   Seddon. 

HP.  Rentoul 

that  happened  yesterday  afternoon;  perhaps  the  most  suggestive  incidents 
in  the  whole  history  of  this  prosecution.  You  will  remember  the  last  two  j 
witnesses  who  were  called  for  the  defence.  Will  you  ever  forget  that  little 
girl,  Maggie  Seddon,  going  into  the  witness-box,  looking  across  the  Court 
at  her  parents,  on  trial  for  their  lives?  Is  there  a  man  amongst  you  who 
did  not  have  the  feeling  then,  God  help  her !  You  know  how  she  was 
cross-examined  on  a  written  statement  that  had  been  obtained  from  her 
under  circumstances  which  have  been  dealt  with  to-day  already.  I  do 
wish  to  emphasise  them  further.  We  know  that  in  France,  unless  the  law 
has  been  altered,  officials  are  allowed  to  examine  and  cross-examine 
prisoners  in  their  cells,  and  then  use  what  they  say  against  them;  but 
such  a  system  has  always  been  abhorrent  to  English  ideas  of  fairplay, 
justice,  and  mercy.  And  there  is  really  not  much  difference  between  cross- 
examining  the  prisoners  themselves  and  questioning  their  little  daughter  * 
of  fifteen  in  order  that  she  may  help  to  twine  the  rope  to  hang  her  father 
and  her  mother.  Do  you  remember  the  questions  asked?  First  of  all, 
"  Did  you  not  go  to  the  chemist's  at  the  corner  to  purchase  fly-papers?  " 
To  that  she  answers  that  she  did  not  remember.  There  may  have  been  a  '\. 
misunderstanding.  It  only  means  the  alteration  of  one  little  word  to  make 
her  answer  a  perfectly  truthful  one.  If  she  thought  the  question  was,  "  Did  4 
you  not  go  to  the  chemist's  at  the  corner  and  purchase  fly-papers?  "  because 
we  know  that  the  chemist  did  not  give  them  to  her;  she  was  refused  them;  . 
but,  take  it  which  ever  way  you  like,  it  was  a  misunderstanding,  a  mistake 
that  even  an  educated  person  might  have  made ;  and  yet  she  is  cross- 
examined  on  that  discrepancy,  in  order  to  discredit,  if  possible,  the  whole 
of  her  testimony.  Does  that  not  show  to  what  straits  the  prosecution  are 
reduced?  We  know  that  the  Attorney-General  himself  felt  the  pain  of  the 
position  as  acutely  as  any  one.  Not  once  but  several  times  he  said,  "  I  am 
sorry  to  press  you,  but  I  must."  Does  that  not  show  the  weakness  of 
the  case  for  the  prosecution?  Would  they  not,  if  they  had  had  a  strong 
case,  rather  have  let  that  little  girl  go  uncross-examined  than  attempt 
to  discredit  her  on  a  statement  that  would  be  a  pain  for  her  in  so  unusual, 
I  may  say,  so  un-English  a  fashion?  Then  the  last  witness  that  was  called 
was  Mrs.  Rutt,  the  charwoman.  You  will  not  forget  my  friend  Mr.  Muir's 
first  question  to  her,  "  Are  you  not  a  thief ;  did  you  not  steal  from  the 
S«ddon's  house?"  and  I  need  not  relate  to  you  again  the  facts.  You  know  , 
her  explanation;  what  she  did  might  be  technically  a  theft,  but  certainly  it  ] 
was  not  morally  one.  And  yet  that  again  is  used  in  order  to  discredit  ; 
her  and  make  you  disbelieve  her  testimony  in  this  terrible  struggle  of  life  $ 
and  death.  The  very  last  thing  that  counsel  ever  like  to  do  is  to  attempt 
to  discredit  a  witness  for  some  fault,  even  for  some  crime,  that  has  nothing 
to  do  with  veracity,  and  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  Muir  would  have  been  the  last 
to  do  such  a  thing  if  he  had  not  known  that  he  was  before  a  jury  who  would 
never  convict  in  this  case  unless  every  material  witness  that  could  be  called 
for  the  defence  was  discredited.  And  from  those  facts,  gentlemen,  I 
suggest  to  you  that  the  doubts  for  the  prosecution  have  not  disappeared  as 
this  case  has  proceeded. 

I  am  not  making  any  appeal  for  mercy  to  you  on  behalf  of  this 
woman ;  I  am  only  asking  you  for  justice,  and  to  say  that  on  the  evidence 
the  case  has  not  been  made  out  against  her.  When  I  have  finished  the 

Y  337 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Rentoul 

Attorney-General  will  address  you  in  a  final  speech  on  behalf  of  the  Crown. 
Suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  his  speech  were  to  banish  all  your 
doubts  and  make  them  disappear;  we  know  what  effect  a  powerful  speaker 
can  produce,  and  what  a  vital  effect  the  last  word  in  a  case  often  has.  Might 
it  not  well  happen  that  after  the  effects  of  that  speech  had  grown  dim,  doubt 
might  come  creeping  back,  and  you  might  begin  to  ask  yourselves  later 
)  on,  when  you  thought  over  this  case,  whether  a  murder  really  had  been 
committed  by  the  prisoners  in  the  dock,  or  whether  a  judicial  murder 
had  not  been  committed  from  the  jury  box?  Button  the  other  hand,  it 
might'  be  said  that,  suppose  you  were  to  acquit  her,  and  hereafter  the 
conviction  were  to  come  out  that  these  prisoners  were  guilty,  what  would 
be  your  feelings  then?  Why,  merely  that  you  had  let  guilty  prisoners 
escape,  and  left  to  them  that  most  terrible  of  punishments,  a  guilty  con- 
science, and  to  that  other  tribunal  where  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be 
known.  But  I  trust,  gentlemen,  that  you  will  have  no  such  doubts  in  this 
:  case,  and  that  you  will  answer  the  question  that  will  be  put  to  you  later  on 
with  two  words  that  I  know  will  give  relief  to  every  man  in  this  Court,  from 
my  lord  on  the  bench  to  the  least  important  person  connected  -with  this 
trial,  or  to  the  least  interested  spectator.  I  know  full  well  that  you  are  not 
going  to  decide  this  case  on  the  speeches  of  counsel.  It  is  on  the  evidence, 
and  the  evidence  alone,  that  you  will  decide.  The  inquiry  has  been  an 
»  exhaustive  one,  and  the  decision  rests  with  you.  It  is  a  burden  so  heavy 
';  that  I  do  not  suppose  any  man  in  this  Court  would  desire  to  share  it  with 
|  you,  even  if  he  could.  It  is,  indeed,  a  grave  responsibility  for  men  to  be 
called  away,  as  you  have  been,  from  your  ordinary  everyday  affairs,  to 
be  kept  apart,  and  asked  to  decide  upon  matters  of  life  and  death.  That 
you  will  only  do  so  after  the  most  careful  and  most  anxious  consideration, 
that  you  will  decide  each  and  every  doubtful  point  in  favour  of  the  prisoners, 
as  it  is  your  duty  to  do,  I  know  full  well.  And  it  is  just  because  I  am  con- 
vinced of  that,  and  because  I  know  that  there  exists  deep  in  your  hearts 
a  desire  to  do  justice  in  this  case,  that  I  ask  you  on  behalf  of  Mrs.  Seddon 
to  return  the  only  verdict  that  you  can  return,  without  fear  or  hesitation, 
and  that  is,  an  emphatic  verdict  of  Not  Guilty. 

The  Attorney-General's  Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — May  it  please  you,  my  lord — Gentlemen  of 
the  jury,  after  what  has  undoubtedly  been  a  long  trial,  we  are  now 
approaching  the  closing  stages  of  this  case.  Much  has  been  said  to  you 
by  both  my  learned  friends  of  the  responsibilities  which  rest  upon  you 
in  deciding  this  case,  and  I  agree  with  every  word  that  has  been  said 
so  far  as  it  deals  with  the  responsibilities  cast  upon  you.  I  am  glad 
that  during  this  case  both  the  prisoners  have  had  the  advantage  of  being 
defended  by  counsel  who  have  put  their  case  with  all  the  ability  that 
can  be  commanded.  It  is  fortunate  that  during  this  long  inquiry  you 
have  had,  principally  at  the  hands  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall, 
cross-examination  of  the  various  witnesses  who  have  been  called  before 
you,  and  examination  of  the  witnesses  called  for  the  defence.  Gentle- 
men, there  are  some  persons  who  think  that  the  march  of  Justice  is 
338 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General. 

too   slow.        For   my  part  I   am  sure  you  will   agree   with   me  when  I 
say  that  no  moment  spent  in  inquiring  into  the  truth  of  a  case  of  this 
kind  has  been  wasted.       At  least,  you  will  have  heard  everything  that 
can  possibly  be  said  for  the  defence.       My  learned  friend,   Mr.   Marshall 
Hall,  during  the  course  of  what  I  would  call  (particularly  as  he  is  not 
present)  an  admirable  speech  for  the  defence,  in  which  every  point  that 
possibly  could  be  made  was  made  by  him  with  all  the  force,   and  with 
all   the   eloquence  possible  to  be   exerted,    referred   to   the   fairness   with 
which  he  said  the  prosecution  had  been  conducted.       I  only  wish  to  say    ^ 
one  word  about  that.       It  is  this ;  that  in  my  view  no  credit  is  due  to 
any  advocate  who  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  presents  his  case  with  fair-    | 
ness   and   with  that  impartiality  which   ought  to   be   expected    of   him;    j 
and   I    am   glad   at   any   rate  for   the   administration   of   justice   in   this 
country   that  that   reputation  for  fairness   is   always   preserved,    and   in-    / 
variably  maintained  by  those  who  appear  for  the  Crown  when  the  law 
officers  do  not  come  to  this  Court. 

Gentlemen,  the  presence  of  a  law  officer  of  the  Crown  adds  nothing 
to  this  case.  All  that  it  means  is  that  in  the  course  of  my  duty  as  the 
senior  law  officer  of  the  Crown  I  have  come  to  this  Court  to  present  the 
case  to  my  lord  and  to  you.  In  the  course  of  the  administration  of  the 
criminal  law  which  devolves  upon  me  in  my  position  as  Attorney- General, 
it  is  an  obligation  upon  me  in  certain  cases  to  come  here  to  prosecute.  I 
only  make  that  reference — which  otherwise  certainly  would  never  have 
been  made  by  me — in  consequence  of  the  observations  which  were  made 
by  my  learned  friend. 

Now,   gentlemen,   he  said,   perfectly  rightly — he  was  quite  justified    ! 
in  the   statement — that  the  case  was  of   importance.        It  would   be   of 
extreme  importance  if  it  was  the  smallest  and  meanest  case  that  ever    | 
existed,  when  a  man  is  on  trial  and  a  woman  is  on  trial  for  life.       This 
case   is   of  importance,    and   of   more   importance,    perhaps,    than   most, 
because  in  all  cases  that  depend  upon  circumstantial  evidence  there   is 
the  necessity,  as  I  indicated  to  you  in  opening  the  case,  of  scrutinising 
carefully  the  evidence  that  has  been   given.       You  will  remember  that 
in  opening  this  case  I  pointed  out  to  you,  what  I  will  only  now  venture 
to  repeat  in  a  few  words,   that  the  mere  fact  of  these  persons  having    j 
committed  theft  or  meanness,   or  been  guilty  of — well,   I  will  say  only,    j 
of  deplorable  conduct — is   not  of   itself  sufficient  to  convict   any   person    ] 
of  murder.        Of  course  not.        You  will   remember  that  I   pointed  out   3 
carefully  that  in  considering  the  various  pieces  of  evidence  which  I  had 
to   put  before   you,    you  must  not   allow   your   minds   to   be   prejudiced 
against  the  prisoners  by  thinking,  because  they  had  committed  some  other 
crime,  that  therefore  they  could  be  convicted  of  murder.       What  I  did 
point  out,  and  what  I  will  again  point  out  to  you  is  that,  when  you  are 
considering  a  case  which  depends,   as  this  does,   upon  indirect  evidence, 
it  is  of  vital  importance  to  consider  the  conduct  of  the  prisoners,   both 
before  and   after  the  death;   more  especially   in   relation   to   the   person 
whose  death  has  led  to  this  inquiry. 

Gentlemen,  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  has  said  a  good 
deal  about  the  introduction  of  what  he  designated  as  prejudice  into  the 
case.  He  quite  properly  made  no  complaint  of  it,  because  he  realised, 

339 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney- General 


as  everyone  must  who  had  ever  dealt  with  trials  of  this  character,  that 
evidence  which  is  given  of  motive,  of  interest,  in  the  prisoners  charged, 
and  their  subsequent  conduct,  such  as  is  invariably,  almost  invariably, 
given  in  these  cases,  must,  if  it  is  to  be  of  any  value  at  all,  be  evidence 
which  will  prejudice  the  defendant — in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  that 
is;  that  when  this  evidence  is  given  and  accepted,  it  shows  that  there 
was  a  motive  or  interest  in  getting  rid  of  the  dead  person,  and  also, 
inasmuch  as  it  shows  that  the  conduct  both  before  and  after  of  the  persons 
charged  was  bad,  undoubtedly  it  acts  to  the  prejudice  of  the  prisoners. 
That,  as  I  have  indicated  to  you,  is  used  by  the  prosecution  for  this  pur- 
pose only — of  bringing  your  minds  to  bear  upon  the  cause  of  death  of 
this  woman,  and  it  is  only  in  that  relation  that  I  intend  to  make  any 
reference  to  it. 

I  propose  now  to  address  you,  and  I  hope  to  be  able  to  do  it  at  not 
too  great  a  length,  upon  this  whole  case,  reminding  you  of  the  case  that 
I  opened  now  some  few  days  ago.  The  case  I  put  to  you  then  was  this 
— that  I  relied  upon  the  evidence  of  the  interest  of  these  parties,  of  both 
of  them,  the  motive  that  they  had  in  desiring  the  death  of  this  woman, 
the  opportunities  which  they  had  had  of  compassing  her  death,  and  the 
conduct  of  both  of  them  after  the  death;  and  I  am  going  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  evidence  as  it  stands  now;  because  my  submission  to 
you  will  be  that  the  case  I  opened  to  you  and  presented  to  you  then  is 
a  case  which  has  not  been  shaken  by  the  evidence  for  the  defence.  I 
shall  call  your  special  attention  to  points  which  have  been  made  and 
dwelt  upon  by  my  learned  friends,  and  refer,  as  far  as  is  necessary, 
though  it  shall  be  very  briefly,  to  the  evidence  of  both  sides,  that  is  to 
say,  both  of  the  Crown  and  of  the  defence,  as  affecting  the  particular 
point.  My  duty,  gentlemen,  is  to  put  this  case  to  you,  with  such  ability 
as  I  can  command,  to  enable  you  to  come  to  a  just  conclusion.  There 
my  duty  begins  and  ends. 

The  first  question  which  you  have  to  consider — but  upon  which  I 
do  not  propose  to  say  very  much,  because  I  cannot  help  thinking  that 
there  has  been  no  very  serious  contest  with  regard  to  it — is,  whether 
this  woman  died  of  arsenical  poisoning.  That  is  the  first  thing  which 
it  is  incumbent  upon  the  prosecution  to  establish,  and  I  submit  to  you 
that  that,  at  any  rate,  has  been  established  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 
I  am  not  quite  sure  that  even  at  this  moment  I  understand  exactly  the 
view  that  my  learned  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  puts  before  you  with 
regard  to  it.  He  says  that  he  does  not  dispute  that  there  was  arsenic 
in  her  body  after  death,  but  what  he  says  is  that  what  was  found  was 
'  not  sufficient  to  cause  her  death,  and  that  she  died  of  gastro-enteritis, 
perhaps  assisted  by  arsenical  poisoning.  My  learned  friend,  of  course, 
would  never  make  that  admission  if  he  could  have  escaped  from  it  in  any 
way  upon  the  evidence,  but  there  is  no  escaping  from  it.  Whatever 
else  may  be  said  of  science,  whatever  criticism  may  be  directed  to  medical 
testimony,  this  is  at  least  established  in  this  case — that  the  evidence  of 
Dr.  Willcox  and  of  Dr.  Spilsbury,  examined,  closely  scrutinised  as  it 
.  was,  and  quite  properly  by  my  learned  friend,  stands  quite  uncontra- 
dicted  and  unchallenged.  My  learned  friend  paid  a  very  high  compli- 
ment to  Dr.  Willcox,  and  I  would  only  like  myself  in  passing  to  say  this, 
340 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown, 

Attorney-General 

that  in  the  course  of  what  is  now  a  very  long  experience  at  the  bar  I 
never  remember  hearing  witnesses  give  their  evidence  as  Dr.  Willcox 
and  Dr.  Spilsbury  did,  as  I  submit  to  you — of  course,  it  is  for  you  to 
judge — with  more  impartiality,  more  honesty  in  every  word  they  uttered. 
This,  however,  is  not  in  controversy  in  this  case;  I  am  not  uttering  a 
word  with  which  my  learned  friend  would  disagree.  On  the  contrary, 
my  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  has  emphatically  stated  that  he  is  in  com- 
plete agreement  with  the  view  which  I  have  just  stated  to  you. 

Now,  both  Dr.  Willcox  and  Dr.  Spilsbury  have  proved  by  scientific  ' 
testimony — which  if  it  has  any  merit  at  all  has  this  merit,  that  it  proves 
a  thing  beyond  any  doub^— Dr.  Willcox  has  established  to  you  that 
beyond  all  doubt,  in  his  opinion,  acute  arsenical  poisoning  was  the  cause 
of  death,  and  Dr.  Spilsbury  has  stated  the  same  thing.  My  learned  4 
friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  with  great  ease  in  dealing  with  these  medical 
and  scientific  matters,  and  with  undoubtedly  great  knowledge,  has  only 
ventured  to  make  one  criticism,  and  that  was,  that  the  Marsh  test, 
according  to  the  view  that  he  puts  forward,  because  it  deals  with  such 
very  minute  quantities,  is  not  reliable.  He  had  before  him  standard 
mirrors  which  were  made  for  this  case;  you  have  seen  them;  Dr.  Willcox 
had  them  in  the  box.  Mr.  Rosenheim,  my  friend's  expert  witness,  the 
physiologist,  the  chemist,  who  was  going  into  the  box  to  contradict,  has 
not  been  called  in  this  case  by  my  learned  friend.  He  was  here,  and 
rightly  here,  of  course,  during  the  whole  of  the  evidence  given  by  Dr. 
Spilsbury  and  Dr.  Willcox.  He  is  here  assisting  my  learned  friends, 
and  imparting  to  them  the  knowledge  which  he  possesses;  and  the  result 
of  it  all  has  been  this,  that  he  has  not  been  called;  and  he  has  not  been 
called  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  could  not  contradict  anything  that 
Dr.  Willcox  and  Dr.  Spilsbury  had  said.  And  what  is  the  whole  value 
of  the  cross-examination  of  my  learned  friend?  He  says  that  these 
minute  calculations  are  not  to  be  relied  on.  Really,  we  have  only  my 
learned  friend's  word  for  that,  and  that  only  a  forensic  word;  he  states 
it  in  argument.  The  witnesses  have  told  you  that  that  is  not  so,  that 
the  test  is  quite  absolute,  except  in  one  respect,  with  which  I  will  deal  in  a 
moment;  and  Mr.  Rosenheim,  who  is  himself  a  gentleman  of  expert 
knowledge,  agrees  with  that,  because  he  has  not  been  called. 

My  learned  friend's  criticism  has  been  directed  to  one  or  two  of  the 
most  minute  items  which  he  selected  from  the  table,  which  has  been 
before  you,  but  he  omitted  to  deal  with  what  is  the  most  important 
part  of  this  analysis ;  and  he  omitted  it  because  he  could  not  say  anything 
in  criticism  of  it,  not  because  attention  had  not  been  drawn  to  it.  Both 
my  lord  and  you  during  the  course  of  the  case  drew  attention  to  this, 
that  the  Marsh  test,  which  is  the  calculation  by  these  mirrors,  these 
standards,  comparing  the  standard  mirror  with  the  mirror  got  by  the 
test  described  by  Dr.  Willcox,  is  not  the  test  which  is  of  value  in  this 
case  at  all.  My  learned  friend  has  given  the  go-bye  to  the  real  point 
in  this  case,  and  has  not  ventured  to  deal  with  it.  I  put  it  only  yes- 
terday to  Dr.  Willcox.  When  it  was  found  that  the  liver  and  the  intes- 
tines showed,  as  I  said  yesterday,  f  of  a  grain — not  by  the  Marsh  test; 
that  was  not  the  point;  that  is  taken  by  weight;  the  proportions  of  the 
liver  and  intestines  and  the  stomach,  if  taken  together,  show  just  upon 

34i 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

a  grain.  If  you  take  what  is  taken  by  weight  only,  that  is  the  liver 
and  the  intestines,  you  get,  as  you  may  have  noticed  from  the  table 
when  it  was  before  you,  over  £  of  a  grain,  that  is  '8.  The  liver  is  '17; 
the  intestines  '63;  so  you  get  '8  of  a  grain.  Four-fifths  of  a  grain 
is  actually  found  in  the  organs  of  the  body  which  would  contain  the 
arsenic,  if  arsenic  had  only  been  recently  administered,  and  which  even 
then  only  contains  one  portion  of  it,  part  of  it  having  been  ejected  by 
means  of  vomiting,  or  by  means  of  the  excreta,  or  it  may  be  by  the 
passing  of  urine.  Then,  gentlemen,  just  take  into  account  that  '8 
of  a  grain  which  is  found  by  the  weight  on  a  very  small  particle;  in 
one  case  it  is  a  quarter  of  the  weight  of  the  organ  which  gives  the 
result;  in  the  other  it  is  a  fifth  of  the  weight  of  the  organ  which  gives 
the  result.  If  you  take  that  into  account,  that,  according  to  Dr.  Will- 
cox,  would  be  sufficient  to  kill  a  person.  He  has  told  you  that  if  you 
find  two  grains  in  the  body  you  would  expect  to  find  that  there  must 
have  been  taken,  according  to  his  view,  5  grains  of  arsenic,  and  2  grains 
is  a  fatal  dose.  Then  if  you  had,  as  has  been  established  here  beyond 
all  doubt,  four-fifths  of  a  grain  in  the  stomach  and  intestines,  and  had 
nothing  more  at  all,  you  would  have  sufficient  to  account  for  the  death 
of  this  woman. 

But  I  do  not  want  to  stop  quite  at  that,  because  it  is  right  that  you 
should  clearly  be  convinced  of  this  point  before  we  go  into  what  I  think 
is  more  controversial  evidence.  I  asked  Dr.  Willcox — you  will  remember 
it — in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Rosenheim,  who  was  sitting  in  front  of  my 
learned  friend,  whether  he  had  not  had  a  visit  from  Mr.  Rosenheim. 
My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  quite  rightly  referred  to  it  just 
now;  and  Dr.  Willcox  had  had  all  the  materials,  had  all  the  apparatus 
ready  for  the  test.  Any  further  test  could  have  been  made  if  Mr. 
Rosenheim  had  required  them.  As  he  has  told  you,  he  always  keeps,  so 
that  any  further  tests  can  be  made  if  desired,  a  portion  of  the  organs 
still.  So  that  all  this  could  be  tested,  and  could  be,  right  up  to  this 
very  minute,  if  my  friend  had  desired  it.  That  is  in  existence  now. 
There  is  the  opportunity,  and  there  has  been  the  opportunity  through- 
out this  case.  As  Dr.  Willcox  told  you,  "  I  could  boil  up  the  intestines 
and  get  the  exact  weight,  instead  of  taking  the  weight  that  I  find  in  a 
quarter  of  the  intestines,  but  for  the  fact  if  I  did,  and  if  there  is  any 
subsequent  challenge,  how  on  earth  are  you  to  ascertain  whether  the 
analysis  is  right  or  not?"  Therefore,  in  order  to  give  the  defence  the 
fair  opportunity  of  making  tests  or  of  asking  for  tests,  portions  of  the 
organs  are  kept  in  this  way,  so  that  if  they  are  dissatisfied  with  the 
result  they  may  say,  "  Let  me  make  a  test  before  you,  or  you  make  a  test 
before  me,  so  that  I  may  prove  which  of  us  is  right."  The  standard 
mirrors  were  all  exhibited  to  Mr.  Rosenheim;  the  mirrors  found  as  the 
result  of  the  analyses  were  all  exhibited  to  Mr.  Rosenheim;  the  tables 
with  the  results  were  placed  in  front  of  Mr.  Rosenheim.  Not  a  criti- 
cism, not  a  fault,  can  be  found  by  Mr.  Rosenheim;  and  for  that  reason 
he  has  not  been  put  into  the  witness-box  to  contradict  Dr.  Willcox. 

Now,    gentlemen,   upon    that   state  of    facts    I   will    only    make    one 

further    observation.        My   learned    friend    cross-examined   a    great    deal 

about   the   relative   quantities    of    arsenic    that    had   been  found    as    the 

result  of  experiment  in  the  proximal  and  the  distal  ends   of  the  hair; 

342 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

but  it  is  quite  immaterial  for  the  purpose  of  the  point  as  we  now  have 
it,  because  you  will  remember,  I  think,  what  was  pointed  out  when  you 
had  the  table  before  you.  What  was  found  in  the  hair  has  never  been 
calculated  in  the  2'01,  which  is  the  result  of  the  calculations  as  found  in 
the  body.  It  has  never  entered  into  it  at  all — neither  the  hair,  nor 
the  skin,  nor  the  bones.  Whatever  was  found  in  the  hair,  skin,  and 
bone,  has  not  been  counted  at  all;  and  the  only  point  of  Dr.  Willcox 
telling  you  what  he  did  was  because  in  fairness  he  had  to  say  exactly 
what  arsenic  he  had  found,  and  what  traces  there  were  throughout  the 
whole  of  that  body.  The  value  of  the  Marsh  test  is  to  show  this;  that 
the  arsenic  was  widely  distributed  throughout  the  body.  That  is  the 
point.  It  is  not  in  order  to  arrive  at  all  these  minute  quantities ; 
there  are  infinitesimal  portions,  of  course;  but  the  value  of  it  is  that 
there  were  traces  of  arsenic  in  this  organ  as  in  the  others. 

The  only  other  criticism,  I  think,  that  has  been  made  with  reference 
to  it  was  my  friend's  point  about  the  muscle.  He  said  that  two-fifths 
of  the  muscle  had  been  taken,  and  he  compared  the  weight  of  the  body 
alive  with  the  weight  of  the  body  dead.  The  weight  of  the  woman's 
body  alive  may  have  been  10  stone  or  more,  and  the  weight  when  dead 
was  4  stone  11  Ibs.  The  result  is  this.  What  Dr.  Willcox  has  done  is 
to  take  the  two-fifths  of  the  weight  of  the  body,  which  is  the  proper 
method  of  calculation,  and,  as  he  has  told  you,  a  method  of  calculation 
which  gives  a  less  result  in  arsenic  than  if  he  had  adopted  the  usual 
method  of  calculating  these  quantities.  He  pointed  out  that  it  was  in 
favour  of  the  accused  that  he  had  taken  this  view.  And  again,  even 
if  you  say  that  1'03  is  too  much,  even  if  you  leave  out  the  whole  of  it, 
you  still  get  enough.  If  you  take  half  of  it  you  have  got  enough,  and 
it  does  not  affect  the  calculation  in  the  slightest  degree. 

The  only  other  criticism  was  one  of  my  learned  friend's,  which,  so 
far  as  I  understood  him,  was  based  upon  his  own  results,  and  certainly 
was  not  the  effect  of  anything  that  Dr.  Willcox  said,  and  I  confess  it 
surprised  me.  Because,  as  I  understand,  he  says,  "  Oh,  well,  but  if 
you  take  these  Marsh  tests  they  cannot  be  reliable,  because  there  is  the 
opening  at  the  end,  and  some  of  the  arsenic  must  escape  and  did  escape." 
The  evidence  upon  it  is  that  none  of  it  escapes — that  the  whole  value 
of  the  Marsh  test  is  that  whatever  arsenic  there  is  is  precipitated  on 
to  the  glass  of  the  tube  and  forms  the  mirror.  If  my  friend  is  right  in 
his  contention  that  some  of  it  escapes,  then  the  inevitable  conclusion  is 
that  there  must  have  been  more  arsenic  than  Dr.  Willcox  shows  by  his 
tests  and  by  his  calculations.  I  do  not  say  that  that  is  right.  All 
I  say  is  that  it  shows  the  danger  of  an  advocate  attempting  to  deal 
with  things  of  which  he  may  have  some  knowledge,  but  which  he  cannot 
possibly  understand  as  the  experts  can  who  give  their  lives  to  the  study 
of  these  matters,  and  who  alone  have  a  right  to  testify  when  they  are 
in  the  witness-box  giving  their  evidence  on  oath.* 

Gentlemen,  my  submission  to  you  with  reference  to  this  case  is  that 
it  is  established  beyond  all  possible  doubt  that  this  woman  died  from  acute 

*Mr.  Marshall  Hall's  remarks  referred  to  possible  inaccuracy  in  the  standard  or 
measuring  mirror,  which,  as  he  suggested,  might  lead  to  the  amounts  found  in  the  body 
being  inaccurately  estimated. — ED. 

343 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


arsenical  poisoning.  Quite  true  that  it  is  not  discovered  till  some  more 
than  two  months  after  her  death.  You  know  the  story  of  that.  You 
know  why  it  is,  and  what  led  to  the  exhumation,  and  I  am  not  going 
to  repeat  that  to  you.  You  have  given  such  attention  to  this  case, 
and  really  have  listened  to  it  with  such  diligence  that  I  want  to  spare 
you,  if  I  can,  the  recital  of  either  immaterial  details  or  details  which 
have  been  sufficiently  established  beforehand. 

Then,  gentlemen,  that  being  established,  comes  the  next  point, 
upon  which,  of  course,  I  shall  have  more  to  say.  The  second  question 
which  you  will  have  to  determine  is — did  these  prisoners,  or  did  one 
of  them,  administer  this  arsenic?  As  I  pointed  out  to  you  in  the  opening 
of  the  case,  the  case  made  by  the  prosecution  is  that  the  administering 
of  the  arsenic  was  the  result  of  a  common  purpose.  I  shall  have  some- 
thing more  to  say  about  that  before  I  conclude,  so  that  you  may  follow 
exactly  what  my  view,  as  presented  to  you,  of  the  legal  position  is, 
always  remembering,  of  course,  that  I  speak  subject  to  my  lord's  direc- 
tion, and  any  view  which  my  lord  may  take.  But  this  question,  whether 
this  poison  was  administered  by  the  prisoners,  is  one  which  does  involve 
an  examination,  and  a  somewhat  close  examination,  into  the  facts  of  this 
case.  You  have  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing  the  male  prisoner  and 
the  female  prisoner  in  the  box.  I  shall  not  say  too  much,  and  I  am 
quite  certain  that  I  shall  not  be  saying  one  word  which  can  operate 
unfairly  against  the  male  prisoner,  if  I  put  him  forward  before  you  as 
a  shrewd,  acute,  keen  person,  and  I  will  add  also  that,  so  far,  I  am  in 
direct  agreement  with  what  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  said 
in  speaking  of  him.  But  I  will  add  this — and  I  shall  submit  to  you  the 
facts  upon  which  I  base  this  view  which  I  am  submitting  for  your  con- 
sideration and  your  judgment — that  he  is  a  man  full  of  cunning  and 
craft;  according  to  what  my  learned  friend  has  been  compelled  to  say, 
a  man  also  actuated  by  greed  and  covetousness.  Upon  admitted  facts 
in  this  case — I  am  not  dealing  with  the  facts  that  are  in  controversy — 
those  qualities  are  displayed  over  and  over  again,  and,  as  I  shall  show 
you,  at  every  turn,  at  every  fresh  movement  in  the  history  of  this  case, 
you  will  find  the  same  qualities  of  mind  operating  as  the  case  proceeds 
from  day  to  day. 

Now,  let  me  call  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  some  of  the  facts 
which  are  not  now  and  which  have  not  been  from  the  beginning  of  the  trial 
in  dispute.  You  will  remember  that  when  I  opened  the  case  I  told  you 
that  there  was  an  agreement  for  an  annuity  which  had  been  made  by 
Seddon.  That  was  one  of  the  points  to  which  I  drew  special  attention. 
The  case  made  by  Seddon  until  I  cross-examined  him  was  this — this 
was  the  case  made  by  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  over  and  over 
again,  referring  to  the  document — that  this  agreement  about  the  annuity 
was  an  agreement  which  had  been  entered  into  and  made  with  stock- 
brokers, solicitors,  all  skilled  persons,  who  watched  over  her  interest*. 
When  we  got  to  what  were  the  real  facts  of  the  case,  it  was  established 
that  the  original  bargain  was  made  by  Seddon  with  Miss  Barrow  alone; 
neither  solicitor,  nor  stockbroker,  nor  any  skilled  adviser  entered  into 
this  transaction.  He  made  the  contract.  He  drew  up  the  document. 
My  learned  friend  said  that  I  was  suggesting  that  he  was  a  lawyer. 
344 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

No;  I  never  suggested  that.  What  I  have  suggested  is  that  he  had 
got  a  certain  smattering  of  legal  knowledge,  and,  as  I  shall  show  you, 
as  very  often  happens  in  such  cases,  it  has  proved  a  very  dangerous 
thing  to  him.  He  has  used  it.  He  used  it  first  of  all  to  draw  up  this 
document  which  we  have  never  seen,  because,  as  he  tells  us,  he  destroyed 
it;  it  is  the  document  which  you  may  remember — in  fact,  to  speak  quite 
accurately,  according  to  the  evidence,  there  were  two.  One  was  the 
document  which  had  his  signature  upon  it,  and  which  was  witnessed  by 
his  brother-in-law  and  another  person,  a  Mr.  Robert,  whom  we  have  not 
seen,  but  whose  name  was  given.  That  was  the  document  which  was 
first  drawn  up.  It  must  have  been,  according  to  the  evidence,  some 
time  in  September,  1910.  There  was  another  document  contemporaneous 
with  it.  I  said  it  was  signed  a  day  or  so  afterwards,  but  I  treat  them 
as  contemporaneous  documents  which  were  signed  by  Miss  Barrow,  and 
witnessed  by  Mrs.  Seddon ;  that  was  the  bargain,  the  original  transaction. 
We  know  now  that  that  was  destroyed,  and  that  subsequently  solicitors 
were  called  in  to  carry  out  the  assignment  of  the  public-house  and  the 
barber's  shop.  Seddon's  story  of  it  was  not  quite  clear,  but  I  do  not 
desire  to  make  any  special  point  of  how  it  was  that  he  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  void.  At  one  time  he  said  that  it  was  in  his 
own  opinion  void,  and  then  he  subsequently  says  that  he  was  advised  that 
it  was  void ;  but  it  does  not  matter.  He  came  to  the  conclusion,  whether 
upon  advice  or  his  own  view,  that  it  was  void,  and  thereupon  it  was 
destroyed,  and  recourse  was  made  to  the  solicitors,  Messrs.  Russell  &  Sons, 
who  came  upon  the  scene,  and,  as  you  will  remember,  Messrs.  Russell  & 
Sons,  as  respectable  solicitors,  realising  that  this  man  was  doing  a  trans- 
action with  this  lady,  living  in  his  house,  that  she  was  unprotected,  and 
had  nobody  to  advise  her,  said,  "  You  ought  to  have  somebody  in  to 
advise  you  "  ;  and  so  another  solicitor,  Mr.  Knight,  the  brother-in-law  of 
Mr.  Keeble,  is  introduced  for  that  purpose.  The  point  that  I  want  to 
make  to  you,  and  that  is  established  upon  Seddon's  own  evidence,  is  that 
all  this  parade  of  stockbrokers  and  solicitors  acting  in  the  matter  is  only 
a  parade,  and  that  the  bargain  was  a  bargain  which  had  been  struck 
between  him  and  her.  All  this  information  about  this  original  bargain 
and  the  drawing  up  of  these  documents  was  suppressed ;  we  never  heard  a 
word  about  it. 

The  full  significance  of  it  becomes  even  more  apparent  when  you 
remember  what  happened  when  he  came  to  see  the  relatives  after  the 
death.  You  may  remember  the  sentence  that  I  read  to  him  out  of  a  letter 
which  he  had  himself  written,  the  letter  of  21st  September,  which  he  had 
to  admit  concealed  the  truth.  It  is  a  letter  which  would  have  led  anybody 
to  believe  that  the  whole  transaction  had  been  done  with  stockbrokers  and 
solicitors,  and  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Gentlemen,  that  is  the 
first  comment  that  I  desire  to  make  upon  this  annuity  transaction. 

The  second  is  this,  that  the  India  stock,  the  £1600  India  3£  per  cent, 
nominal  value,  was  transferred  to  him  under  date  14th  October,  1910, 
without  a  single  scrap  of  writing,  or  any  agreement  between  him  and  Miss 
Barrow.  He  had  got  possession  of  the  whole  of  it.  He  could  sell  it 
that  day ;  he  could  sell  it  the  next  day.  According  to  his  statement  he 
got  possession  of  it  on  a  verbal  agreement,  to  use  his  own  words  from  his 

345 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

evidence  given  at  the  inquest.  He  says  (to  do  him  justice)  that  subse- 
quently, in  January,  there  was  an  annuity  certificate.  What  he  means 
by  an  annuity  certificate  is  something  which  he  drew  up,  in  which  he 
stated  that  he  had  to  pay  her  an  annuity ;  that  does  not  come  into  exist- 
ence till  January.  We  have  not  seen  it.  I  make  no  point  of  it.  I 
make  no  challenge  of  it;  I  leave  it  at  that,  but  what  I  do  aek  you  to 
infer  is  that  what  happened  in  September  and  October,  when  apparently 
the  transfer  was  made  of  this  stock,  which  was  as  good  as  money  to 
Seddon,  shows  that  she  had  given  him,  to  use  my  learned  friend's  words 
in  his  speech,  her  implicit  confidence ;  she  trusted  him  absolutely.  Gentle- 
men, need  I  dwell  upon  that?  You  have  seen  Mr.  Seddon;  you  have 
seen  him  in  the  box — under  circumstances  of  great  stress,  I  agree,  in 
which  every  allowance  that  is  possible  should  be  made  for  him.  Having 
seen  him  there,  and  watched  him,  can  you  have  any  doubt  but  that  he 
had  secured  the  "  implicit  confidence  "  of  Miss  Barrow?  And  I  will  tell 
you  what  I  am  submitting  to  you  followed  from  that.  Not  only  had  he 
got  her  £1600  India  3£  per  cent,  stock,  but,  either  then  or  at  some  later 
time,  she  trusted  him  with  her  gold,  and  she  trusted  him  with  her  notes. 
For  it  is  no  good  these  two  people  going  into  the  box  and  giving  the 
accounts  that  they  have  given  to  you  about  that  part  of  the  transaction. 
How  it  affects  the  question  of  guilt  on  the  charge  for  which  they  are  now 
prosecuted  is  another  matter;  but  upon  the  facts  of  the  case,  I  submit  to 
you  it  is  idle  for  them  to  suggest  that  they  know  nothing  at  all  about  this 
money — either  the  gold  or  the  notes.  Just  conceive  the  position.  Here 
was  this  woman.  She  has  been  talked  of  as  an  old  maid;  she  was  forty- 
eight  or  forty-nine  years  of  age ;  she  was  in  the  habit  of  going  out  every 
day  with  the  boy — the  boy  to  whom,  according  to  the  evidence,  her  whole 
heart  seems  to  have  been  given.  Whatever  her  failings  may  have  been, 
whatever  her  faults  may  have  been  (and  I  have  no  doubt  that  in  the  lives 
of  all  of  us,  when  examined,  some  will  be  found  when  we  are  gone),  what- 
ever they  may  have  been,  she  seems  to  have  been  devotedly  attached  to 
this  boy.  I  am  going  to  suggest  to  you — of  course,  for  your  considera- 
tion— that  she  had  no  notion  during  the  whole  of  this  time  that  she  was 
parting  with  her  property,  with  her  gold,  or  with  her  notes,  and  had 
never  intended  to  get  rid  of  gold  or  notes  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things — 
allowing  that  she  did  not  intend  to  give  it  to  her  relatives — that  she  meant 
to  retain  it  for  her  boy,  whom,  in  the  maternal  instinct,  no  doubt,  of  the 
spinster  heart,  she  was  cherishing,  and  to  whom  she  had  become  devoted. 

Now,  just  let  me  ask  you  to  think  for  a  moment  of  what  the  evidence 
is  as  regards  the  money.  When  you  come  to  put  this  case  together  and 
see  what  was  happening,  my  submission  to  you  is  that  it  is  absolutely  im- 
possible to  explain  what  had  become  of  this  woman's  money,  except  upon 
the  view  that  these  two  persons  had  got  hold  of  it,  and  had  got  hold  of 
it  before  her  death — at  any  rate,  a  large  quantity  of  it.  That  it  was 
in  Miss  Barrow's  mind  to  entrust  her  money  to  him  is  shown  by  an 
incident  which  took  place  a  day  or  two  before  Hook  leaves.  The  incident 
to  which  I  want  to  refer  for  a  moment  is  this,  because,  according  to  the 
view  that  I  present  to  you,  it  shows  that  the  statements  that  they  are 
making  with  reference  to  this  money  are  absolutely  untrue.  According 
to  Hook's  testimony — I  shall  have  something  to  say  about  him  a  little 
346 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

later  on — but,  according  to  Hook's  testimony,  which  is  corroborated,  as 
I  shall  show  you  in  a  moment,  by  Mr.  Vonderahe,  in  the  cash  box  there 
was  a  considerable  sum  of  notes.  According  to  him,  he  saw  £380 ;  it 
had  been  £420  in  1906 ;  he  saw  it  counted  out  again  when  it  went  to  the 
house  in  Tollington  Park,  and  it  was  380  sovereigns  and  a  lot  of  notes 
in  that  cash  box.  The  notes  are  gone.  The  gold  is  gone.  More  gold 
is  added  to  the  store,  and  that  is  gone.  Some  money  was  withdrawn 
from  the  savings  bank,  and  that  has  disappeared — all  disappeared  whilst 
she  was  in  the  house  living  with  these  two  persons.  As  I  indicated  to  you 
in  opening  the  case,  actual  sovereigns  are  difficult  to  trace ;  current  coin 
passes  from  hand  to  hand,  and  you  cannot  identify  particular  sovereigns ; 
but  you  can  identify  particular  bank  notes.  My  learned  friend  Mr. 
RentoTil  (no  doubt  in  his  enthusiastic  advocacy  for  his  client,  for  which, 
I  am  sure,  he  will  not  think  I  am  blaming  him,  but  on  the  contrary  I  will, 
if  I  may,  commend  him)  said  that  she  admitted  it  directly  the  question 
of  the  notes  was  brought  forward.  I  have  looked  in  vain  for  the  ad- 
mission. To  whom  did  she  admit  it?  Where  did  she  admit  it?  If  my 
friend  means,  under  that  phrase,  that  she  admitted  it  when  her  husband 
asked  her  when  they  were  both  being  charged  together,  yes,  then  I  follow 
what  he  means ;  but  what  the  value  of  that  admission  is  I  fail  to  grasp. 
This  question  of  tracing  the  notes  had  been  a  most  difficult  and  laborious 
process.  Possibly  it  is  only  in  the  hands  of  the  authorities  that  you  can 
pet  a  thorough  tracing  of  notes.  It  is  only  when  the  Director  of  Public 
Prosecutions  or  the  Commissioner  of  Police  takes  up  a  case  of  this  kind, 
in  all  probability  that  you  can  get  such  a  tracing  of  notes  as  has  taken 
place  in  this  case.  Why,  gentlemen,  the  number  of  witnesses  called  in 
order  to  establish  this  dealing  with  the  notes  is — I  will  not  pledge  myself 
to  the  exact  number,  but  it  is  between  forty  and  fifty  persons — persons 
who  have  been  called  at  the  Police  Court  and  called  here  before  you.  Of 
course,  as  my  learned  friend  rightly  pointed  out,  all  the  evidence  that  haa 
been  given  at  the  Police  Court  and  the  evidence  that  has 
been  given  here  in  regard  to  that  is  not  challenged.  It  is  not  challenged 
for  what  reason?  Why,  the  elementary  lesson  that  an  advocate  learns 
is  never  to  challenge  evidence"  which  he  will  not  be  able  to  dispute.  Of 
course,  all  this  is  undisputed,  necessarily -••undisputed— and  the  class  of 
evidence  does  not  admit  of  dispute.  It  proved  this.  It  proved  the 
dealing  with  £165  in  £5  notes,  to  which  must  be  added  another  note  of 
which  we  had  an  admission  yesterday  from  Mrs.  Seddon.  But  leave 
that  out  of  the  calculation ;  after  all,  it  adds  little  to  it.  Where  did  those 
notes  come  from?  The  money  found  its  way  into  the  pockets  of  Mr. 
Seddon  and  Mrs.  Seddon.  How  did  they  get  them?  You  have  heard 
a  remarkable  story  of  how  Mrs.  Seddon  got  the  money.  She  says  Miss 
Barrow  was  in  the  habit  of  coming  down  and  handing  a  £5  note  to  change ; 
that  was  continued  right  up  to  the  end  of  August,  1911.  Mind  you,  after 
she  had  actually  got  the  £216  in  sovereigns  in  her  box  on  the  19th  June, 
July,  and  August,  and  even  in  September,  to  bring  down  notes  for  the 
purpose  of  having  them  changed  into  gold. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  do  not  think  Mrs.  Seddon  got  anything  in 
September;  I  think  her  last  was  in  August. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Thirty-three  notes  are  traced  on  the  table  to 

347 


Trial  of  the   Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

the  end  of  August,  1911;  they  form  the  £165.     There  was  one  note  which 

ehe  admitted  yesterday 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  thought  you  were  going  to  leave  that  out. 

IThe  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am.     I  was  only  referring  to  the  fact  that 
she  admitted  that  one  yesterday. 
Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — The  23rd  August  was  the  last  date. 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  was  only  going  to  observe  this,  that  on  the 
19th  June  the  £216  is  withdrawn  in  actual  gold,  and  it  is  taken  home  to  the 
house.     On  the  26th  June,  the  5th  July,  the  15th  July,  then  4th  August, 
the  8th  August,  the  10th  August,  and  the  23rd  August  notes  are  being 
passed  by  Mrs.    Seddon.      And,   gentlemen,   let  me   further  observe  this. 

(During  the  month  of  August,  1911,  when  the  changing  of  notes  has  become 
as  familiar  to  her  as  eating  bread  and  butter,  even  in  that  month  of  August 
she  gives  a  false  name  and  false  address.  Mrs.  Seddon,  when  pressed  with 
this,  gave  you  what  I  submit  is  a  very  extraordinary  explanation.  Of  course, 
these  matters  are  for  you  to  judge.  It  is  a  very  difficult  situation,  no  doubt, 
for  her  to  explain.  Again,  it  is  a  matter  partly  for  her,  and  no  doubt 
a  matter  upon  which  you  may  judge,  whether  under  the  circumstances, 
in  view  of  what  has  happened,  it  was  any  good  making  the  pretence  that 
these  notes  had  been  given  by  Miss  Barrow  to  her  to  cash.  But  when  ehe 
is  asked  whether  she  could  give  any  reason  for  Miss  Barrow  doing  this,  she 
gave  what  is  perhaps  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  answers  in  this  case. 
She  said,  because  Miss  Barrow  did  not  like  notes;  she  did  not  like  having 
;  notes.  Upon  the  evidence,  which  is  beyond  all  dispute,  and  is  not  disputed, 
i  Miss  Barrow  had  hoarded  notes  from  the  year  1901  until  the  time  when 
she  went  to  live  at  Tollington  Park;  and  some  of  these  very  notes  with 
which  we  are  new  dealing  which  have  been  traced  are  notes  which  Miss 
Barrow  had  hoarded  up  in  the  years  1901,  1902,  1903,  1904,  1905,  and 
so  on,  till  the  year  1910,  because  she  had  this  fancy  for  keeping  the  notes 
in  her  cash  box.  Those  are  the  admitted  facts.  No  explanation,  no 
suggestion  has  been  given  why  all  of  a  sudden  she  went  to  change  these 
notes  into  gold. 

Then  Mrs.  Seddon  goes  to  the  Post  Office  to  change  the  notes.  Well, 
gentlemen,  you  heard  her.  She  was  asked  to  give  her  name  and  address; 
she  said  she  had  never  handled  a  £5  note.  It  is  a  little  difficult  to  accept 
in  view  of  this  that  she  had  been  carrying  on  a  business  for  some  twelve 
months,  and,  according  to  them,  if  you  accept  their  statement,  a  business 
in  which  hundreds  of  pounds  passed.  I  will  assume  that  she  had  never 
changed  a  £5  note  in  her  life.  She  goes  to  the  Post  Office.  Gentlemen, 
can  you  conceive  the  state  of  mind  of  the  woman  who  is  honestly  there 
with  a  £5  note  which  she  is  asked  to  cash  for  some  one  who  is  a  friend 
of  hers,  and  who  is  asked  by  the  postmaster  to  give  her  name  and 
address,  and  immediately  gives  a  false  name  and  a  false  number  of  the 
street  in  which  she  had  lived?  She  says  she  did  that  because  she  was 
unused  to  it.  Well,  if  it  had  been  a  solitary  occasion — difficult  as  it  might 
seem — one  might  in  mercy  have  accepted  the  explanation,  but  how  can 
you?  She  goes  on  in  March — months  afterwards — when  she  has  been 
dealing  with  some  of  these  £5  notes  in  shops  where  she  is  known,  spending 
money,  and  having  to  change  the  note;  of  course,  there  she  could  not 
give  a  false  name  and  address,  because  she  spends  the  money,  and  they 
348 


Closing  Speech  for  the   Crown. 

Attorney-General 

know  her  there;  but  at  these  other  places  that  she  goes  to  on  other 
occasions  she  changes  notes  and  gives  false  names  and  addresses.  Gentle- 
men, she  is  bound  to  admit  that  she  did  not  know  anybody  of  the  name 
of  Scott;  she  did  not  know  anybody  living  at  18  Evershot  Road;  and 
equally  is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that,  of  course,  notes  with  false  names  and 
addresses  endorsed  upon  them  are  very  much  more  difficult  to  trace  than 
notes  with  a  right  name  and  address  upon  them. 

Gentlemen,  the  conclusion  which  I  ask  you  to  draw  when  you  consider 
the  evidence  upon  this  part  of  the  case  is  that  she  had  improperly  made 
use  of  these  £5  notes.  That  the  £5  notes  were  in  existence  when  she  went 
into  the  house  there  is  no  doubt;  that  is  proved  beyond  all  contradiction; 
it  is  indeed  admitted.  Yes,  in  August  of  1910,  according  to  the  story  as 
told,  when  this  incident  occurred  with  the  Hooks — there  is  some  small 
controversy  which  I  will  not  pause  for  a  second  to  deal  with — some  squalid 
dispute  between  him  and  Hook — Miss  Barrow  brings  the  cash  box  to  Mr. 
Seddon  and  asks  him  to  take  care  of  it.  That  is  very  likely  true.  That  is 
in  accordance  with  the  agreement  that  had  been  made  by  which  she  had 
placed  herself  in  his  hands  entirely  with  regard  to  the  annuity.  It  will 
accord  with  the  transfer  by  her  of  £1600  worth  of  stock  into  his  name 
without  even  a  scrap  of  document  to  show  that  she  had  an  interest  in  an 
annuity  at  all.  It  will  accord  with  everything  that  had  taken  place.  It 
would  be,  as  my  friend  says,  an  example  of  the  implicit  confidence  that 
she  was  placing  in  him.  She  brings  in  the  box,  and  he  says  she  said  to 
him,  "  There  is  £30  to  £35."  Why  does  he  say  that?  If  he  were  to  tell 
you  the  truth,  which  was  that  she  told  him  what  money  there  was  really 
in  it.  of  course,  it  adds  a  great  deal  to  the  money  which  has  got  to  be 
accounted  for  somehow  or  other  on  his  own  showing,  or  which,  at  any  rate, 
would  have  been  in  her  possession.  But  be  says  she  told  him  there  was 
£30  to  £35.  Now,  Miss  Barrow  could  not  possibly  have  said  that.  That 
is  the  point  I  want  to  make  clear  to  you;  because,  on  their  own  showing, 
there  was,  at  the  very  least,  £170  in  notes  in  that  cash  box.  This  story 
about  the  £30  to  £35  is  absolutely  untrue.  I  am  not  unmindful  of  the 
fact  which,  in  fairness  to  them,  perhaps  ought  to  be  mentioned,  that  they 
say  they  do  not  know,  or  did  not  know,  that  the  £5  notes  were  kept  in 
the  cash  box;  they  both  say  that;  because  they  say  they  never  saw  it 
opened  until  after  her  death.  They  have  failed  to  give  the  faintest  explana- 
tion of  where  these  £5  notes  came  from,  and  you  had  the  most  definite 
evidence,  both  of  Hook  and  of  Mr.  Vonderahe,  about  it.  It  is  quite  clear, 
in  my  submission,  that  it  is  an  absolute  impossibility  that  Miss  Barrow 
could  have  said  to  him  that  there  was  £30  to  £35  there.  They  tell  the 
same  story,  of  course ;  their  evidence  to  a  certain  extent — except  as  to  some 
points  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention — is  an  echo  the  one  of  the  other. 
£30  to  £35  she  brings  to  him  to  take  care  of,  their  story  is,  because  she 
is  afraid  of  Hook.  Mr.  Seddon  is  absolutely  precise  about  it.  He  says  he 
will  not  accept  that  cash  box  for  safe  custody  unless  she  counts  out  the 
money  then  and  there  to  him,  and  he  would  give  a  receipt  for  it  to  her. 
His  story  is  that  she  said  there  was  £30  to  £35 ;  he  says,  "  Count  it  out," 
and,  for  some  reason  utterly  unexplained,  she  goes  up  to  her  room  with  the 
cash  box  and  never  comes  down,  and  nothing  more  is  heard  of  it.  Of 
course,  to  a  great  extent,  you  have  to  reconstruct  what  happened  during 

349 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-G  eneral 


this  time;  because  we  have  only  the  evidence  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  as 
to  what  happened  at  the  particular  moment;  but,  fortunately,  there  is 
the  evidence  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention,  which  makes  that 
statement  of  theirs  absolutely  untrue. 

Now,  gentlemen,  just  let  me  remind  you  of  the  money  that  passes 

into  this  woman's  hands,   according  to  the  story  told  by  the  defendants 

^  themselves.     There  is — I  will  leave  out  the  £8  which  was  discussed  yester- 

*  day;  it  only  complicates  matters — there  is  £165  cashed  by  the  changing 
of  notes  into  gold.     There  is  £91  which  was  received  by  this  lady  for  the 
annuity,  according  to  the  Seddons'  own  statement.     There  is  £216  which 
was  drawn  out  on  the  19th  June.     That  is  £472.     But  you  will  observe, 
gentlemen,  I  have  not  taken  into  account  at  all  in  that  £472  the  amount 
of  gold  that  she  had  when  she  came  into  the  house.     Now,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  there  was  a  considerable  quantity  of  gold.     There  are  three 
persons  who  have  spoken  to  it — Hook,  Mr.  Vonderahe,  and  Ernie  Grant — 
they  all  saw  it;  the  exact  amount  is  not  very  material,  but,  so  far  as  we 

•  are  able  to  get  the  figures,  there  is,  upon  the  evidence,  £380.     If  there 
was  £380,  as  has  been  deposed  to  in  such  definite  terms,  that  would  give 

[  £850  as  the  total  sum  of  money  which  was  in  her  hands,  subject,  of  course, 
I  to  this — you  must  put  on  the  other  side  of  it  what  she  was  spending. 
I  We  have  got  a  very  great  light  upon  the  kind  of  life  she  was  living  and 
the  amount  she  was  spending.  She  was  living  up  in  this  one  bedroom  with 
a  small  kitchen  in  which  she  used  to  have  her  meals  with  Ernie  Grant.  We 
know  what  Ernie  Grant  cost  to  keep  according  to  the  Seddons,  and  I  will 
assume  that  Ernie  Grant  was  kept  by  them  during  the  two  weeks  as  he 
was  kept  by  Miss  Barrow;  that  comes  to  10s.  a  week — the  cost  of  keeping 
the  boy.  I  say  I  know  that,  because  we  have  got  the  account  which  I  put 
in,  where  he  accounts  for  the  £10  which  he  found,  and  he  puts  down  the 
keep  of  Ernie  Grant  for  two  weeks  at  10s.  a  week.  It  really  is  not  very 
material;  there  is  12s.  a  week  which  only  for  a  few  months  she  was  paying 
as  rent,  because  from  the  1st  January  she  does  not  pay  any  rent  at  all; 
that  is  included  in  the  annuity;  she  had  not  got  to  pay  that;  leave  that 
out  of  account.  Apparently  she  was  a  very  shabbily  dressed  woman,  and 
spent  very  little  upon  herself.  Let  us  put  down  that  she  spent  £1  a  week 
upon  herself  for  mere  food  and  clothing,  or  30s. ;  it  does  not  matter,  it  ia 
not  worth  spending  a  moment  over.  The  utmost  you  can  get  out  of  it  is 
that  she  spent  about  £2  a  week  at  the  very  highest,  and  spending  that  for 
a  short  time  from  the  1st  January,  we  will  say,  until  the  14th  September, 
you  have  got  the  total  amount  of  money  that  she  could  have  spent;  say  she 
spent  £100  during  that  time.  According  to  the  way  in  which  she  was 
living,  she  could  not  have  spent  it  very  well  without  spending  some  money 
outside;  but,  say,  £100.  Then  you  have  got  £750  to  account  for;  that  is 
assuming  that  there  were  no  other  notes  than  those  we  have  traced.  You 
may  leave  out  the  £10  which  had  been  given  her  on  the  2nd  September. 
Then,  gentlemen,  the  total  amount  of  money  found  in  this  woman's  posses- 
sion on  the  day  she  died  was  3d.  in  coppers. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  they  had  possession  of  the  money  out  of  the  cash 
box;  if,  just  in  the  same  way  he  had  complete  custody  of  her  bank 
notes  and  her  gold,  at  some  time  or  other  the  day  of  reckoning  would 
come,  and  that  money  would  have  to  be  paid  over.  My  submission  to  you 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

is  that  this  is  a  material  factor  to  take  into  account  in  this  case,  because 
if  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  had  dishonestly  used  the  notes 
and  had  got  the  gold,  with  the  greed  and  covetousness,  unfortunately, 
of  some  men,  dreading  the  arrival  of  the  day  when  they  might  be  called 
upon  to  account  for  the  money,  you  get  motive,  overwhelming  motive,  for 
desiring  this  woman's  death.  If  you  add  to  that  that  there  was  the  payment 
of  the  annuity  which  had  to  be  made,  the  payment  of  which  rested  upon 
him  as  long  as  this  woman  was  alive,  then  you  again  get  a  further  reason 
why  it  would  have  been  to  his  interest  beyond  all  dispute  that  this  woman's 
life  should  cease.* 

Adjourned. 


Tenth  Day— Thursday,  I4th   March,   1912. 

The  Court  met  at  10.30  a.m. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL,  resuming — When  the  Court  adjourned 
yesterday  I  was  asking  you  to  bear  in  mind  the  story  told  by  both 
prisoners  as  to  the  dealings  with  the  cash  box,  in  order  to  put  before  you 
what  I  suggest  is  the  true  explanation  of  how  these  prisoners  came  to 
be  passing  these  notes  when  dealing  with  Miss  Barrow's  money.  In 
this  connection  it  is  not  unimportant  to  refer  for  a  moment  to  what  has 
been  said  by  the  female  prisoner,  in  addition  to  what  I  mentioned  yester- 
day. She  apparently  gave  the  explanation  to  her  husband  when  he  asked 
her  about  it,  according  to  the  story  we  have  heard  in  the  witness-box, 
that  she  did  not  want  everybody  to  know  her  business,  and  that  is  why 
she  had  given  the  false  name  and  address.  That  is  an  explanation  which 
one  understands  if  she  was  improperly  passing  these  notes,  the  property 
of  Miss  Barrow,  but  an  absolutely  impossible  explanation  to  accept  if 
the  story  she  is  now  giving  is  true.  It  was  very  remarkable  how  the 
story  shifted.  The  male  prisoner  in  the  box  gave  this  explanation  when 
I  pressed  him  about  the  passing  of  these  notes,  and  he  said  that  was  her 
story.  You  may  remember  that  I  put  some  very  simple  and  easy  questions 
to  him,  which  showed  perfectly  plainly  that  that  was  a  theory  which  no 
reasonable  man  could  ever  accept  in  explanation.  When  she  came  into 
the  witness-box  she  never  said  a  word  about  that  story.  There  was  an 
entirely  different  suggestion  about  never  having  passed  a  note  before. 

I  am  not  going  to  delay  by  dwelling  at  any  greater  length  upon  those 
incidents,  except  to  say  a  word  or  two  in  passing  about  the  male  prisoner's 
dealing  with  the  notes.  According  to  his  story,  he  received  one  £5  note 
in  payment  for  a  cheque  for  £9  8s.  4d.,  which  he  says  he  sent  to  Frere, 
Cholmeley  &  Co.  in  October,  1910,  for  the  ground  rent  which  was  due  on 
the  Buck's  Head.  The  other  £5  note,  which  got  into  his  banking  account 
at  the  beginning  of  January,  1911,  he  says  came  into  his  possession  by 
her  giving  him  a  £5  note  on  five  different  occasions  in  payment  of  the 
12s.  rent,  and  for  which  he  returned  her  £4  8s.  change.  With  regard  to 
the  first  £5  note  as  to  the  cheque,  it  is  of  very  little  importance  in  this 
case,  but  when  we  once  know,  as  we  do  know,  that  he  had  already  made 

*  See  note  by  Seddon,  Appendix  K. 

351 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


the  bargain  in  September  of  1910,  by  which  the  India  stock  was  to  be 
transferred  and  the  Buck's  Head  property  was  to  be  his,  and  he  was  to 
pay  an  annuity,  and  when  we  know  that  on  the  14th  October  he  had 
already  got  her  India  stock,  and  that  on  the  5th  October,  from  the 
letters  produced,  the  solicitors  were  already  upon  the  scene  to  make  out 
the  assignment  of  the  Buck's  Head,  it  is  not  very  difficult  to  understand 
that  as  part  of  that  bargain  it  would  have  been  his  duty  to  pay  the 
ground  rent  then,  as  he  did  on  subsequent  occasions  from  the  moment 
the  assignment  was  completed.  It  is  not  a  very  important  matter.  But, 
as  regards  the  other  £5  notes,  it  is  very  difficult  to  follow  from  his  point 
of  view.  During  that  time  a  considerable  number  of  notes  are  also 
getting  into  the  possession  of  his  wife,  and,  if  you  can  understand  the 
story  as  told  by  them,  it  would  seem  that  she  was  always  giving  out  £6 
notes  and  getting  gold  in  change;  that  year,  I  think  during  October, 
November,  and  December,  she  received  at  least  £25,  which  she  passes 
and  deals  with  in  notes,  and  he  gets  £30.  The  explanation  as  to  his 
five  £5  notes,  I  submit  to  you,  is  quite  impossible  to  accept  in  the  circum- 
stances of  her  story  and  of  his  story.  Apparently  she  must  have  been 
getting  all  the  gold  she  could  possibly  want.  She  is  getting  gold  changed 
from  these  notes  of  the  wife.  She  is  getting  all  the  gold  she  could 
possibly  want  from  him,  if  only  to  change  one,  and  in  addition  to  this 
she  must  be  having,  according  to  this  story,  in  her  possession,  a  consider- 
able amount  of  gold,  even  on  their  statement.  There  it  is.  I  do  not 
mean  to  go  into  it  in  more  detail.  It  shows  us  this,  that  both  of  them 
are  dealing  with  this  money,  both  of  them  are  dealing  with  these  notes, 
and  I  submit  to  you  both  of  them  are  unable  to  give  any  reasonable 
explanation  of  why  they  are  dealing  with  it. 

Now,  that  brings  me  up  to  the  month  of  August.  I  do  not  mean 
to  repeat  either  what  was  said  yesterday  in  the  history  of  the  case  by 
my  learned  friends,  or  what  I  may  have  referred  to  myself.  That  brings 
us  to  the  month  of  August,  1911,  when  apparently  she  consults  Dr.  Paul. 
You  have  heard  Dr.  Paul's  evidence ;  he  says  that  she  was  suffering  from 
a  slight  ailment,  congestion  of  the  liver,  or  a  bilious  attack,  but  it  was 
not  bad  enough  to  keep  her  in  the  house.  That  was  for  the  first  two 
or  three  times  that  she  goes  to  see  him,  and  during  the  last  twice  she  is 
suffering  from  a  slight  attack  of  asthma,  and  not  congestion  of  the  liver 
at  all — asthma  which,  he  said,  was  not  sufficient  to  keep  her  indoors  for 
a  moment;  she  was  walking  about  in  her  usual  health,  meeting  her 
relatives,  as  we  know,  during  this  month  of  August,  and  taking  the  boy 
to  school,  fetching  him  from  school,  and  living  her  ordinary  life. 

Then  we  get  to  the  month  of  September,  and  I  want  to  direct  your 
attention  to  what  appears  to  me  to  be  the  most  important  point  in  this 
case,  and  that  is  the  purchase  of  arsenic  on  26th  August,  1911.  The 
theory  of  the  prosecution,  as  I  opened,  supported  by  evidence,  as  I  will 
show  you  directly,  is  this,  that  Margaret  Seddon  had  gone  to  Thorley's 
shop  at  Crouch  Hill  on  26th  August,  1911,  and  had  purchased  there  a 
packet  of  arsenical  fly-papers.  The  answer  that  is  made  to  that  case 
by  the  defence  is  that  she  never  did  go  there,  and  that  Mr.  Thorley 
had  made  a  mistake  in  identifying  Margaret  Seddon  as  the  person  who 
bought  those  papers.  If  the  view  put  forward  by  the  prosecution  is 
352 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

right;  if,  on  examination  of  the  evidence  that  has  been  given,  you 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  she  did  go  to  Thorley's  on  26th  August  and 
purchase  these  fly-papers,  then  the  whole  theory  of  the  defence,  all  the 
views  put  forward  by  the  defence,  break  down,  and  the  case  for  the  defence 
crumbles  away.  I  will  tell  you  why  I  say  that — because  no  attempted 
explanation  has  been  given  as  to  why  it  was  that  those  fly-papers  should 
have  been  asked  for  on  26th  August.  What  is  far  more  important  even 
than  the  purchase  is  that  when  this  girl  went  to  Thorley's,  as  we  know 
she  did,  she  asked  for  four  packets  of  fly-papers,  which  would  contain 
twenty-four  papers,  each  one  of  which,  as  we  know,  contains  more  than 
sufficient  to  kill  an  adult  human  being.  Of  course,  it  may  be  very  well 
that  any  person  who  was  going  to  use  these  fly-papers  to  poison  a  human 
being  would  not  know  exactly  how  much  there  was  in  a  fly-paper.  But 
if  the  girl  went  to  buy  four  packets  of  Mather's  arsenical  fly-papers 
according  to  Thorley,  whose  evidence  I  will  read  to  you  directly,  then  I 
do  eay  that  there  is  absolutely  no  explanation  that  could  possibly  be 
given  by  the  defence  which  is  consistent  with  innocence,  and,  indeed, 
none  has  been  attempted. 

The  case  for  the  defence  is  based  upon  this,  that  the  girl  never  did 
buy  these  fly-papers.  Let  us  see  what  happened.  Let  me  just  recall 
to  your  minds  what  took  place  in  this  Court.  Mr.  Thorley  was  called, 
and  his  evidence  amounted  to  this.  You  may  remember  as  I  opened  the 
case  all  that  I  said  in  reference  to  it  was  that  Margaret  Seddon  had 
purchased  a  packet  of  these  fly-papers  on  26th  August;  and  Mr.  Thorley 
came  into  the  box  and  stated  that  a  girl  had  come  into  his  shop  to 
purchase  them ;  he  did  not  know  her  name  was  Margaret  Seddon ;  all 
that  he  knew  was  that  on  a  particular  day,  which  was  a  Saturday,  a 
girl  came  and  he  sold  her  a  packet  of  fly-papers.  He  was  cross-examined, 
and,  of  course,  tested,  as  he  had  to  be  by  my  learned  friend,  and  he 
was  asked  why  it  was  that  he  had  any  special  recollection  of  that  particular 
sale,  and  he  gave  evidence  which  hitherto  could  not  have  been  admitted, 
but  which  became  admissible  evidence,  whatever  doubts  there  might  be- 
about  it  before,  the  moment  his  memory  was  challenged  upon  it,  and 
he  said  that  he  remembered  it  distinctly  because  on  that  date  the  girl 
came  in  and  asked  for  four  packets  of  fly-papers,  and  that  he  had  not 
got  four  packets  to  sell  her,  he  had  only  one,  that  that  was  the  last 
of  his  stock,  and  that  he  made  a  note  in  his  order  book  to  order  more 
because  she  had  wanted  more,  and  he  said  that  he  would  have  them  in 
the  next  week.  That  is  how  the  evidence  stood  with  regard  to  it.  He 
said,  further,  that  he  had  seen  the  girl  before,  because  once  he  had 
opened  the  door  for  her,  and  he  had  seen  her  on  another  occasion  with 
his  daughter.  He  did  not  know  her  name,  and  he  did  not  know  who 
she  was,  but  what  he  did  know  was  that  she  had  been  to  his  house — to 
the  door,  at  any  rate,  to  speak  to  his  daughter,  on  two  occasions.  He 
remembered  her  face,  that  was  all ;  he  never  knew  her  name.  Then 
inquiries  are  made  by  the  police — necessarily  made — in  the  neighbourhood 
to  ascertain  whether  any  fly-papers  had  been  sold  to  the  Seddon  house- 
hold during  this  period ;  and  he  is  asked  whether  he  can  identify  the 
girl  or  not.  He  says  he  does  not  know  whether  he  can  identify  her  or 
not.  Then  he  goes  into  a  room  where  there  are  some  twenty  people, 

z  353 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


and  he  picks  her  out  for  a  very  good  reason — because  he  has  known 
her — he  has  seen  her  on  two  occasions  before,  and  he  remembers  that 
the  girl  who  came  in  to  purchase  the  arsenical  papers  was  the  girl  he  had 
seen  twice  when  she  had  called  for  or  been  with  his  daughter.  Mr. 
Thorley  was  sharply  cross-examined  by  my  learned  friend  necessarily, 
and  he  was  asked  whether  this  was  not  the  result  of  some  conversation 
with  Mr.  Price,  another  chemist.  He  explained  that  it  had  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  it,  and  he  didn't  have  any  such  conversation.  Mr. 
Price  was  the  person  who  was  supposed  to  have  put  it  into  his  mind.  You 
remember  why  that  was.  Mr.  Price  is  the  chemist  from  whom  Maggie 
Seddon,  on  the  6th  December — that  is  two  days  after  his  arrest — sought 
to  purchase  fly-papers.  He  refused  to  sell  them  to  her,  no  doubt  because 
of  what  he  had  heard  in  connection  with  the  case.  But  Mr.  Price, 
according  to  the  view  that  was  put  by  my  learned  friend  in  cross- 
examination,  was  supposed  in  some  way  to  have  suggested  to  Mr.  Thorley 
the  material  from  which  Mr.  Thorley  came  to  the  conclusion  that  Maggie 
Seddon  was  the  girl  to  whom  he  had  sold  fly-papers  in  August.  Mr. 
Thorley  says  he  had  no  conversation  with  him  about  it ;  and  in  order 
that  there  should  be  no  doubt,  and  that  the  matter  should  be  at  least 
thoroughly  questioned  and  sifted,  I  put  Mr.  Price  into  the  box  at  once, 
so  that  my  learned  friend  could  cross-examine  him  upon  this  point.  He 
never  ventured  to  ask  him  a  question  upon  it. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Thorley's  evidence  was  that  he  identified  her 
in  the  morning  before  he  had  seen  Mr.  Price,  so  it  was  useless  to  ask 
him  questions  about  it. 

The  ATTORXEY-GEXERAL — I  agree  with  my  learned  friend  that  it  was 
useless  to  ask  the  question  of  Mr.  Price,  but  the  reason  why  I  put  Mr.  Price 
into  the  witness-box  was,  if  any  suggestion  of  that  kind  were  made,  it 
could  be  put  to  him ;  but  if  my  learned  friend  says  it  was  useless  to  put  it, 
I  am  quite  in  accord  with  him  about  it.  Therefore  Mr.  Price  had  not 
suggested  it  in  any  way  to  Thorley.  How  was  it  Thorley  identified  the 
girl?  He  told  us.  He  went  there  in  the  morning,  and  I  will  just  call 
your  attention  to  what  he  actually  said  about  it,  because  of  its  extreme 
importance.  Gentlemen,  may  I  make  this  further  reference  to  Mr.  Thorley. 
It  is  not  suggested,  and,  indeed,  on  the  material  before  you  it  could  not  be 
suggested,  that  Mr.  Thorley  is  anything  but  an  honest,  straightforward 
tradesman,  carrying  on  his  business  in  this  locality.  There  is  no  ground 
for  any  aspersion  upon  his  character,  and  none  is  made.  Mr.  Thorley's 
anxiety  must  be,  not  to  be  a  witness  in  a  murder  case  in  connection 
with  fly-papers  which  he  sold  to  a  girl,  but  his  anxiety  must  be  to  keep 
out  of  the  case  if  he  possibly  can.  He  is  not  a  man  who  wants  to 
put  himself  forward  in  the  witness-box  to  come  before  you  to  tell  his 
story.  One  knows  quite  well,  first  of  all,  in  the  case  of  a  tradesman  selling 
goods  such  as  these,  that  he  is  by  ro  means  desirous  to  explain  and  tell  you 
what  happened.  There  is  always  the  question  for  consideration  as  to 
whether  he  was  not  bound  to  make  an  entry  of  it,  and  whether  he  ought 
not  to  have  made  an  entry  of  it  in  a  poison  book.  That,  of  course,  is 
not  material  for  the  purpose  of  this  case,  and  I  pass  from  it ;  but  a  chemist 
knows  that,  and  he  does  not  want  to  come  into  the  witness-box  and  tell  his 
story.  And  above  that,  as  we  know,  no  man  who  is  carrying  on  his  business 
354 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

is  desirous  of  attending  either  the  Police  Court  or  this  Court  and  giving  up 
a  good  deal  of  his  time  in  order  that  he  may  give  his  testimony.  But  Mr. 
Thorley  is  an  honest  man;  he  is  unable  to  tell  a  lie  about  it,  and  the 
consequence  of  it  is  that  when  Mr.  Thorley  is  asked  to  come  to  the  station 
and  see  if  he  can  identify  that  girl,  and  he  does  identify  the  girl,  he  is 
bound  to  say  that  he  does  as  an  honourable  man,  and  he  goes  into  the  box 
and  tells  you  without  the  faintest  doubt  that  the  girl  to  whom  he  sold  those 
fly-papers  on  26th  August  was  Margaret  Seddon.  I  only  desire  to  read 
to  you  some  short  passages  from  his  evidence  in  order  to  recall  to  you 
what  happened,  because  they  are  so  important.  You  will  recollect  that  my 
learned  friend  raised  the  point  that  the  evidence  of  Margaret  Seddon's 
purchase  was  not  admissible  evidence,  and  then  the  girl  Chater  was  recalled 
to  prove  that  Margaret  Seddon  slept  in  the  house  and  attended  to  the 
household.  Then  the  examination  was  continued.  The  material  passage 
begins  thus — 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  date  when  you  gave  evidence  at  the  Police  Court  ?  What  I 
want  is,  how  long  it  was  before  that  day  on  which  you  gave  the  evidence  at  the  Police 
Court  that  you  were  asked  about  this  sale  of  the  Mather's  fly-papers? — A.  About  a 
week. 

About  a  week  before  he  gave  evidence,  and  he  gave  evidence,  we  are 
agreed,  on  2nd  February,  1912. 

Q.  Then  you  were  asked  to  go  to  the  Court  on  that  particular  day  on  which  you 
gave  evidence,  that  is  2nd  February,  1912,  do  you  remember  that? — A.  Yes.  Q.  And 
you  were  asked  to  go  into  a  room  where  there  were  a  number  of  women  and  girls  ? — 
A.  Yes.  Q.  About  how  many,  do  you  know ? — A.  About  twenty.  Q.  Did  anybody  go 
in  with  you? — A.  No.  Q.  What  did  you  go  there  for? — A.  To  identify  a  girl  that  I 
had  sold  some  fly-papers  to. 

Then  he  picks  her  out,  and  he  knows  her  now  as  Margaret  Seddon, 
because  he  saw  her  in  Court. 

Mr.  MAKSHALL  HALL — He  said  "  Margaret  Ann  Seddon." 
The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  that  is  quite  true,  but  I  do  not  think 
there  is  any  point  in  that.  He  did  say  first  that  he  thought  her  name  was 
Margaret  Ann  Seddon ;  he  explained  that  he  had  got  the  name  "  Margaret 
Ann  Seddon  "  in  his  mind,  but  the  girl  he  identified  was  beyond  all  question 
Margaret  Seddon,  the  daughter.  You  have  seen  the  girl.  I  suggest  to 
you  that  it  is  not  very  likely  that  he  has  made  a  mistake  about  it,  par- 
ticularly if  he  has  seen  her  three  times.  Here  was  a  girl  who  was  in  the 
habit  of  coming  up,  or  had  been  twice  to  see  the  daughter,  and  then  she 
comes  and  buys  these  fly-papers.  I  will  not  read  to  you  about  what 
happened  as  regards  the  purchase,  because  there  is  no  doubt,  if  Mr.  Thorley 
is  right,  that  this  girl  came  in  there  and  he  sold  a  packet  of  Mather's 
fly-papers  on  that  26th  August,  1911,  and  that  it  was  the  last  packet  that 
he  had  in  stock.  Indeed,  that  is  not  challenged.  What  is  challenged  is 
that  he  sold  it  to  this  girl.  Then  my  learned  friend  puts  this  question  in 
cross-examination — 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  j  ury  how  you  profess  to  remember  the  date  of  26th  August.  Yon 
have  no  note,  have  you — no  memorandum  of  any  sort  or  shape? — A.  I  have  got  my 
invoices.  She  had  the  last  packet  of  a  dozen  that  was  ordered  in  on  one  day.  Q.  The 
last  packet? — A.  She  had  the  last  packet.  Q.  Do  you  keep  a  record  of  the  sale  of  the 
last  packet? — A.  No.  Q.  How  do  you  know  when  the  last  packet  was  sold? — A.  She 
asked  for  four  packets.  Q.  For  four  packets? — A.  Yes.  Q.  Four  packets  of  six 

355 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


papers? — A.  Four  packets,  twenty-four  papers.  Q.  The  girl  who  came  in  on  the  26th 
asked  for  four  packets? — A.  Yes.  Q.  3d.  a  packet? — A.  3d.  a  packet.  That  was 
the  last  one  I  had.  I  put  them  down  to  order  in  the  book,  and  told  her  we  should  have 
some  more  on  Monday.  Q.  Then  you  fix  the  date  from  the  fact  that  you  did  sell  your 
last  packet  on  26th  August  ? — A.  Yes. 

Now,  so  far  Mr.  Thorley  cannot  be  making  a  mistake.  He  has  got  his 
invoices  and  he  has  got  his  memorandum  in  his  order  book,  which,  if 
challenged,  of  course,  could  be  produced;  but  it  was  not  challenged.  He 
had  got  the  note  there  that  they  had  to  be  ordered,  and  he  told  Margaret 
Seddon  that  he  would  get  them  in  during  the  next  week. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  wish  you  would  read  the  next  piece. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — It  goes  to  another  point. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  know  my  learned  friend  wants  to  be  perfectly 
fair,  but  there  is  one  point  he  has  not  touched  upon  at  all ;  I  made  a  great 
point  that  this  gentleman  admitted  that  he  had  seen  a  picture  of  Margaret 
Seddon. 

The  ATTORNEY- GENERAL — I  quite  agree  that  point  was  made  about  it, 
but  I  want  to  read  first  of  all  the  part  that  deals  with  this,  and  then  I  will 
come  back  to  any  passage  my  learned  friend  wants.  He  was  re-examined. 
Your  lordship  will  remember  what  happened  upon  that.  I  asked  the 
question,  "  Now,  tell  us  what  happened  when  the  girl  came  into  the 
shop."  There  was  some  discussion  as  to  whether  that  particular  part 
of  the  evidence  was  admissible.  It  became  admissible,  as  your  lordship 
thought  quite  clearly,  in  consequence  of  the  question  necessarily  put  by  my 
learned  friend,  and  I  put  the  question  then,  as  I  suggest,  in  a  different 
form,  so  as  to  remove  all  possibility  of  doubt.  I  asked  the  same  question 
as  my  learned  friend ;  I  asked  him  to  tell  us  his  special  reason  for  remem- 
bering the  sale  to  the  girl,  and  his  identifying  her  as  Margaret  Seddon, 
and  he  tells  us  the  special  reason  was  this — 

A.  She  asked  for  four  packets  and  I  had  only  one  in  stock.  Q.  Four  packets  of 
what? — A.  Fly-papers.  Q.  Was  any  particular  kind  of  fly-paper  referred  to? — A. 
Arsenical  fly-papers.  Q.  Who  used  those  words  ? — A.  Margaret  Seddon.  Q.  Then  what 
did  you  say? — A,  I  said,  "Will  you  take  a  packet  ?"  She  said,  "  I  will  take  four." 
She  took  the  papers  and  left  the  shop.  Q.  Do  you  mean  the  packet.  — A .  The  packet. 
Q.  I  want  to  know  what  happened  then.  If  you  do  not  remember  say  so.  You  said, 
"Will  you  take  a  packet,"  and  she  said,  "I  will  take  four.''  Now  was  anything  said 
after  that? — A.  Yes,  I  said,  "  That  is  the  only  one  I  have.  I  shall  have  some  more  on 
Monday."  Q.  Had  you  any  more  Mather's  fly-papers  in  stock  than  that  one  packet 
when  the  girl  came  in. — A.  No.  Q.  Did  you  make  any  note  or  entry  in  a  book  on  that 
date? — A.  Yes.  Q.  Did  you  order  any  more  Mather's  fly-papers  ? — A.  Yes. 

That  evidence  shows  clearly  that  she  purchased  one  packet  and  that 
she  wanted  four  packets.  I  will  read  you  now  the  passages  to  which  my 
learned  friend  is  calling  attention  with  reference  to  the  identity.  He 
is  asked  at  page  54,  "  Do  you  know  the  girl,  Margaret  Seddon  at  all?  " 

A.  Yes.  Q.  She  is  a  friend  of  your  daughter's,  is  she  not? — A.  She  is  known 
to  her;  I  do  not  know  her  as  Margaret  Seddon.  Q.  Your  daughter  Mabel? — A.  Yes, 
I  did  not  know  this  girl  as  Margaret  Seddon  until  I  saw  her  in  the  Police  Court, 
although  I  have  seen  her.  Q.  When  you  identified 

The  Attorney  General — Would  you  mind  letting  him  finish  his  answer. 

The  Witness — Although  I  have  seen  her  about  the  neighbourhood. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Q.  The  girl  you  identified  in  the  Police  Court  as  the 
person  who  came  to  your  shop  to  buy  these  fly-papers  is  somebody  who  has  been  to  your 
house  to  see  your  daughter  Mabel? — A.  Yes.  Q.  On  two  occasions  she  called  to  see 

356 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

Mabel  ? — A .  Yes,  she  did  not  come  in.  Q.  No,  that  is  just  what  I  put  to  you.  You 
opened  the  door  and  said  Mabel  was  not  at  home,  and  she  went  away? — A.  Well,  I 
could  not  identify  anybody  I  did  that  to  ;  I  did  that  to  many  other  girls.  Q.  That  is 
the  point  I  am  on.  The  person  you  identified  as  having  bought  the  papers  after  this 
lapse  of  time  is  the  identification  of  somebody  whom  you  had  seen  on  your  premises 
having  come  to  see  your  daughter.  That  is  the  suggestion  I  make  to  you? — A.  I  have 
seen  her  in  the  shop.  Q.  I  suggest  to  you  that  you  have  made  a  mistake.  I  am  not 
suggesting  that  it  is  a  wilful  mistake,  but  I  am  suggesting  to  you  you  have  made  a  mis- 
take, and  that  the  girl  you  identified  on  the  2nd  February  as  the  girl  who  had  bought 
fly-papers  at  your  establishment  on  26th  August,  1911,  is  not  that  girl  but  the  girl  who 
had  twice  called  at  your  place  to  see  your  daughter  Mabel.  Do  you  still  say  that  she  is 
the  girl  who  bought  the  fly-papers? — A.  Yes.  Q.  Let  us  come  to  the  identity.  You 
are  fetched  in  a  motor  car  on  2nd  February,  that  is  so,  is  it  not? — A.  Yes.  Q.  You 
are  brought  down  to  the  Police  Court  with  Mr.  Price  and  somebody  else  in  the 
car.  Were  you  and  Mr.  Price  taken  in  together  to  a  room  where  there  were 
about  twenty  people? — A.  No,  that  was  in  the  morning.  Q.  In  the  morning? — 
A.  I  came  down  by  myself  in  the  morning.  Q.  You  have  been  down  to  the 
Police  Court  before  you  came  down  in  the  motor  car? — A.  Yes. 

So,  you  see,  up  to  that  point  the  suggestion  was  quite  wrong.  He 
had  not  been  with  Mr.  Price  at  all  to  identify  the  girl.  He  went  alone; 
he  did  not  see  Mr.  Price  until  the  afternoon,  when  he  is  sent  for  to  give 
evidence.  Then,  my  learned  friend  puts  this  question — 

Q.  Had  you  seen  the  photograph  of  Margaret  Seddon  in  the  papers — a  picture  I 
mean,  not  a  photograph? — A.  Yes.  Q.  Before  you  went  to  identify  her? — A.  Not  that 
day.  Q.  No,  I  know. — A.  Before  it.  Q.  You  were  taken  down  by  the  police  to  identify 
a  girl  whose  picture  had  been  published  in  the  illustrated  papers,  and  which  you  had 
seen  ? — A .  I  refused  to  identify  the  girl  from  the  pictures  I  had  seen.  Q.  Of  course 
naturally  you  would,  but  the  picture  was  shown  to  you  for  the  purpose  of  identification  ? 
— A.  It  was  not  shown  to  me  by  the  police.  Q.  Anyhow,  you  tell  me  you  had  seen 
it? — A.  Yes.  Q.  You  had  seen  the  picture  of  a  girl  whom  you  knew  to  be  Margaret 
Seddon,  the  daughter  of  the  man  who  is  charged  with  this  murder,  and  you  are  taken 
down  by  the  police  to  identify  that  particular  girl  among  twenty  others.  That  is  so,  is 
it  not  ? — (No  answer).  Q.  Is  that  so? — A.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  knew  I  had 
seen  the  picture.  Q.  Did  not  they  happen  to  ask  you  ? — A.  No.  Q.  You  knew  you 
had  seen  the  picture,  did  you  not? — A.  Yes.  Q.  Until  I  asked  you,  would  you  have 
told  anybody  that  you  had  seen  that  picture  ? — A.  Yes. 

It  is  quite  right  that  you  should  have  that  present  to  your  mind,  as 
that  is  the  reason  why  my  learned  friend  says  you  should  not  rely  upon 
Mr.  Thorley's  evidence  of  identification. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — There  is  a  better  reason  still,  if  you  wUl 
remember,  why  he  did  not  go  on  the  picture — because  the  picture  was  but  a 
picture  in  the  illustrated  papers,  and  they  sometimes  are  very  bad. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — If  there  is  any  point  made  on  that  I  will  produce 
the  actual  picture. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Of  course,  I  quite  follow  my  learned  friend's 
point  with  regard  to  it,  and,  although  I  should  not  put  it  with  the  same 
force  as  he  would  for  his  client,  still  I  will  put  his  point  with  reference 
to  it,  and  if  I  am  wrong  he  will  correct  me.  What  he  means  is,  you 
must  not  rely  on  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Thorley,  because  Mr.  Thorley  had, 
before  he  went  to  the  Police  Court,  seen  a  picture  in  the  paper  of  a  girl 
called  "  Margaret  Seddon,"  and  that  therefore  he  had  in  his  mind  what 
he  had  seen  in  the  paper,  and  that  that  was  Margaret  Seddon,  and  jumped 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  girl  to  whom  he  had  sold  the  papers  was  Margaret 
Seddon.  In  my  submission  to  you  exactly  the  opposite  would  have 
happened,  that  if  Mr.  Thorley  saw  the  picture  there  he  would  not  jump 

357 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


to  any  conclusion  that  that  was  Margaret  Seddon,  unless  he  said  to  himself, 
"  Well,  that  is  very  like  the  girl  whom  I  have  seen  twice  come  in  for  my 
daughter,  and  whom  I  saw  in  the  shop."  He  had  no  interest  in  this  case 
except  to  keep  out  of  it,  and  he  was  particularly  careful,  as  any  honourable 
man  would  be.  Of  course,  he  said  he  could  not  identify  the  girl,  and  would 
not  jump  to  any  conclusion,  and  he  would  not  identify  the  girl  from  what 
he  saw  in  the  paper.  Then  he  is  brought  into  the  room  where  there  are 
these  twenty  women  and  girls,  and  he  picks  out  the  girl  unhesitatingly  as 
the  girl  whom  he  had  known  as  visiting  his  daughter  and  as  the  girl  who 
had  come  into  his  shop,  and  to  whom  he  had  sold  the  fly-papers.  That  is 
the  evidence  upon  it  with  regard  to  Thorley.  At  one  time,  I  will  not  say 
it  was  suggested,  because,  of  course,  my  learned  friend  was  quite  entitled 
to  try  and  shake  the  evidence,  but  there  was  some  doubt  thrown  upon 
Margaret  Seddon's  presence  in  London  on  26th  August. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  could  not  press  that. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  am  not  suggesting  that  there  is  anything 
wrong  in  it.  Whether  it  was  a  mistaken  date  given  to  my  learned  friend 
or  not  is  quite  immaterial.  The  only  reason  I  am  referring  to  it  is  that 
in  consequence  of  the  suggestion  that  was  made  at  one  time  during  the 
cross-examination  we  called  Miss  Mavis  Wilson  who  kept  a  shop.  She 
came  into  the  box  and  told  you  definitely  and  clearly — and  her  evidence 
is  uncontradicted ;  it  is  admitted  by  Margaret  Seddon — that  on  26th  August, 
1911,  this  very  day,  Margaret  Seddon,  the  girl,  did  go  to  Miss  Wilson's 
shop  and  bought,  if  I  remember  aright,  some  shoes  and  a  writing  case 
at  Miss  Wilson's  shop.  The  most  significant  feature  of  all  is  that  on  that 
day  she  goes  to  Miss  Wilson's  shop,  and  from  her  shop  to  Mr.  Thorley's 
shop  is  only  two  minutes'  walk.  Margaret  Seddon  says  she  thinks  it  is 
five  minutes,  but  it  does  not  matter;  people's  opinion  differ  as  to  time;  that 
her  shop  is  a  very  little  way  from  Mr.  Thorley's  is  made  manifest  by  the 
evidence.  So  that  you  have  got  there  Margaret  Seddon  going  to  Wilson's 
shop  and  going  to  Thorley's  shop.  It  is  a  singular  coincidence  that  Mr. 
Thorley,  without  any  knowledge  of  that,  without  the  remotest  notion  that 
she  had  been  to  Miss  Wilson's  shop  upon  that  day,  should  come  forward 
and  say,  as  he  does,  that  upon  that  date  she  came  into  his  shop,  and  that 
she  purchased  these  fly-papers.  Gentlemen,  you  see  how  significant  that 
statement  is.  It  is  not  possible  to  exaggerate  it,  so  it  strikes  me,  and  so  I 
submit  to  you,  because  once  it  is  clear,  as  I  submit  to  you  it  is  clear,  that 
Thorley  is  right  when  he  says  that  the  girl  Margaret  Seddon  came  to  his 
ehop,  then  you  have  got  the  fact  of  this  large  number  of  arsenical  fly-papers 
being  purchased  on  26th  August,  and  all  the  story  told  about  their  not 
knowing  anything  about  arsenic,  and  not  knowing  anything  about  these 
fly-papers,  and  not  having  obtained  any  arsenical  fly-papers  on  this  date, 
has  to  be  rejected,  and  is  all  proved  to  be  absolutely  untrue. 

Now,  I  want  to  deal  with  the  last  feature  of  that  part  of  the  story  which 
is  Margaret  Seddon's  evidence.  Margaret  Seddon  is  called.  Gentlemen,  I 
am  not  going  to  say  a  single  harsh  word  in  criticism  of  Margaret  Seddon. 
The  girl  is  placed  in  a  most  trying  and  difficult  position.  She  has  to  come 
forward  as  a  girl  of  sixteen  years  of  age  to  give  evidence.  She  goes  into 
the  witness-box,  and  she  says  that  she  never  was  there,  and  she  never 
purchased  them.  Then  she  is  confronted  with  the  statement  which  she 
358 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

made,  to  which  I  must  refer  and  say  something  directly  in  answer  to  the 
criticisms  made  by  my  learned  friend.  That  statement  upon  the  face  of 
it  made  by  her  at  the  time  was  untrue.  She  was  asked  whether  she  had 
ever  been  to  any  other  chemist  in  that  neighbourhood  to  purchase  poison, 
including  poisonous  fly-papers.  She  says  ''  No."  She  knew  perfectly  well 
that  she  had.  No  girl  could  forget  it,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  Two  days 
after  her  father's  arrest  she  went  to  purchase  these  arsenical  fly-papers 
from  Mr.  Price,  the  chemist,  and  he  refused  to  sell  them  to  her.  She 
knew  why  she  went.  She  went  with  the  sister  of  the  solicitor  who  was 
acting  for  her  father,  and  she  knew  what  the  object  of  purchasing  them 
was.  She  knew  her  father  had  been  arrested  for  having  murdered  this 
woman  by  administering  arsenic.  She  knew  quite  well  that  she  was  to 
purchase  these  fly-papers,  as  they  were  purchased  immediately  after,  for 
analysis  purposes.  You  will  remember  what  we  have  heard  about  this. 
You  will  remember  the  male  prisoner  was  arrested  on  4th  December. 
That  very  same  day  that  he  is  arrested,  having  been  informed,  as  he  was, 
by  Chief  Inspector  Ward  that  he  was  arrested  for  having  murdered  this 
woman  by  administering  arsenic  and  poisoning  her,  he  sees  his  solicitor, 
the  gentleman  instructing  my  learned  friend.  Immediately  he  sees  him 
this  question  of  the  arsenical  fly-papers  comes  into  consideration ;  we  know 
from  the  evidence  it  is  on  that  day  that  the  question  of  the  purchase  of 
the  arsenical  fly-papers  comes  into  consideration.  According  to  the  story 
as  told  by  the  defence,  what  is  done  then?  Instructions  are  given.  I 
do  not  pause  to  inquire  whether  it  is  Mr.  Saint,  or  whether  it 
is  Mrs.  Seddon;  it  does  not  matter.  The  girl  says  she  does 
not  remember  whether  it  was  Mrs.  Seddon  or  Mr.  Saint. 
Instructions  are  given  for  the  purchase  of  fly-papers  at  Mr.  Price's 
on  6th  December,  and  the  girl  does  go  and  try  to  purchase  them  on  that 
date.  Can  you  imagine  a  girl  who  had  done  that  with  the  knowledge  that 
her  father  had  been  arrested  for  murder  forgetting  that  she  had  been 
to  that  shop  on  the  6th  December  to  buy  these  arsenical  fly-papers? 

The  girl  is  asked  a  question  by  Chief  Inspector  Ward  on  2nd  February, 
1913,  and  he  put  a  question  to  her  which  admits  of  no  doubt — "  Have 
you  been  to  any  other  chemist  in  that  neighbourhood  to  purchase  poison, 
including  poisonous  fly-papers?"  She  says,  "No."  She  must  have 
known  she  was  telling  an  untruth  at  that  time.  She  said  it,  no  doubt, 
because  she  thought  it  served  the  interest  of  her  father.  Chief  Inspector 
Ward  then  goes  on  and  puts  another  question  to  her — "  Have  you  ever 
been  to  the  chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park  and  Stroud 
Green  Road  to  purchase  fly-papers?" — that  is  Mr.  Price's  shop.  She 
says,  "No."  How  could  that  girl  truthfully  have  made  that  answer? 
She  makes  that  answer  because  she  thinks  it  is  in  the  interest  of  her  father 
that  she  should.  Then  Chief  Inspector  Ward  says  to  her — "  Did  you,  on 
6th  December,  1911,  go  to  this  shop  to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers?  " 
Then  she  says,  "Yes."  She  knows  by  that  time  that  the  police  know 
the  date;  they  have  put  to  her,  "On  6th  December,  1911,  did  you  go 
there  to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers?"  and  she  says,  "Yes,  I  went 
there,  but  I  did  not  get  any.  The  chemist  was  going  to  give  them  to 
me  until  I  mentioned  my  name."  You  have  seen  this  paper  which  was 
signed  by  her.  No  suggestion  was  made,  so  far  as  I  follow,  until  my 

359 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


learned  friend  came  to  sum  up  the  case,  about  any  impropriety  on  Chief 
Inspector  Ward's  part  in  putting  the  questions  to  her  in  the  way  in 
which  he  had  asked  her  the  questions  and  taken  the  answers.  The 
girl  says  quite  plainly — "  The  questions  were  read  over  to  me  after  they 
were  taken  down  and  I  had  given  the  answers,  and  I  signed  them."  And 
you  saw  that  each  paper  was  signed  by  her ;  and  it  so  happens  that  the 
first  paper  is  signed  at  exactly  where  the  very  material  question  is  that 
was  asked  her  about  the  purchase  of  poison. 

Now,  in  a  word,  my  submission  with  regard  to  it  is  that  Margaret 
Seddon  is  not  telling  the  truth.  My  learned  friend  referred  to  what 
Chief  Inspector  Ward  had  done.  Well,  gentlemen,  Chief  Inspector  Ward, 
so  far  as  can  be  seen  from  this,  I  submit,  was  acting  quite  properly. 
He  had  to  get  information  for  the  purpose  of  this  case,  and  he  asked  this 
girl  whether  or  not  this  had  taken  place.  You  have  seen  Chief  Inspector 
Ward,  and  certainly  if  my  learned  friend  had  any  question  that  he  desired 
to  put  to  him,  or  to  cross-examine  him  any  further  about  this,  he  could 
have  asked  for  him  and  re-cross-examined  him.  You  have  got  to  judge 
of  these  matters  as  men  of  the  world,  applying  to  these  facts  as  proved 
the  same  test  that  you  would  apply  to  your  own  affairs  in  order  to  arrive 
at  the  truth.  There  is  no  magic  in  applying  these  tests  in  a  case  of  this 
kind  more  than  there  is  in  any  other  case,  except  that  I  agree  with  my 
learned  friend  you  have  to  do  it  with  scrupulous  care.  The  test,  however, 
is  always  the  same.  You  judge  of  actions  as  they  are  proved  to  you, 
testing  them  according  to  your  knowledge  of  the  world  as  you  understand 
human  affairs.  You  have  to  apply  that  test  in  this  case  to  this  most 
important  feature  of  it,  and  that  is  whether  or  not  Mr.  Thorley  is  right 
in  his  identification  of  Margaret  Seddon.  Of  course,  if  Mr.  Thorley  is 
right,  then  you  have  an  ample  explanation  of  how  this  arsenic  got  into 
the  house,  and  how  this  arsenic,  from  the  introduction  into  the  house, 
gets  into  the  body.  Of  course,  you  must  proceed  further  with  reference 
to  that  proposition. 

The  point  I  make  about  it  is  that  the  real  reason  why  the  defence 
has  set  up  this  untrue  story  about  the  purchase  at  Thorley's  shop  on 
26th  August  is  that  if  it  took  place  they  are  quite  unable  to  explain  it ; 
there  is  no  theory  which  can  be  put  forward  by  them  which  can  explain 
their  going  into  that  shop  and  asking  for  those  four  packets  on  26th 
August.  Of  course,  it  was  known,  and  known  during  the  course  of  this 
investigation,  that  the  girl  Margaret  had  been  to  Price's  shop  on  6th 
December  to  purchase  fly-papers ;  and,  of  course,  it  was  equally  seen  that  the 
question  would  arise,  why  did  she  go  on  6th  December  to  buy  these  fly- 
papers? It  was  not  hot;  there  was  no  need  for  them;  it  is  not  suggested 
that  they  were  wanted  for  any  other  purpose  than  analysis ;  they  were  wanted 
because  of  the  case  which  was  being  made  against  him  of  poisoning  by 
arsenic.  The  sending  of  Margaret  Seddon  on  6th  December  to  Price's 
shop  to  buy  these  fly-papers  required  explanation.  The  true  explanation, 
as  I  submit,  the  purchase  at  Thorley's,  could  not  be  given,  and  another 
explanation  was  given  which  is  that  Mrs.  Seddon  bought  fly-papers  on 
the  4th  or  5th  September  at  Meacher's,  the  chemist. 

Now,   gentlemen,    there  are  two   views   with  regard  to   that.     It   is 
introduced  at  a  very  late  stage  of  this  case ;  it  is  introduced  for  the  first 
360 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

time  at  the  end  of  the  case.  In  my  submission  to  you  you  should  con- 
sider, scrutinise,  and  examine  that  with  care.  Mrs.  Seddon,  and  those 
responsible  for  her  defence,  have  been  given  every  opportunity  to  prove 
that  that  statement  about  the  purchase  of  fly-papers  at  Meacher's  is  true. 
They  knew  it  was  challenged ;  they  knew  that  I  challenged  Mr.  Saint 
by  asking  the  question  whether  Mr.  Saint,  the  solicitor,  had  been  to  Mr. 
Meacher's  to  get  him  to  make  a  statement  with  regard  to  the  matter. 
Mr.  Meacher  was  produced  in  Court  so  that  there  would  be  no  question 
about  it,  but  the  statement  rests  absolutely  and  entirely  on  the  uncor- 
roborated testimony  of  Mrs.  Seddon;  not  a  person  is  called  who  could  have 
thrown  any  light  upon  it.  Let  me  observe  further.  It  is  a  very  remark- 
able fact,  you  know,  in  this  case  that  that  story  told  by  Mrs.  Seddon  about 
the  use  of  fly-papers,  and  the  putting  of  the  four  into  the  soup  plate  on 
the  little  table  between  the  windows  comes  in  at  such  a  late  stage  in 
this  case.  Throughout  the  whole  of  the  cross-examination  by  both  my 
learned  friends  from  beginning  to  end  of  this  case  there  has  never  been 
a  suggestion  of  that  having  happened.  The  first  we  ever  heard  of  it  was 
the  story  told  by  Mrs.  Seddon.  My  learned  friend,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall, 
in  opening  the  case  frankly  and  rightly  said  it  was  not  for  him  to  explain 
what  had  happened,  but  suggested  it  was  possible  that  somehow  or  other 
the  water  from  all  the  four  fly-papers  had  been  poured  into  something, 
and  he  suggested  that  was  done  by  Chater,  the  servant.  That  was  the 
suggestion  then  put  forward — that  it  was  Chater  who  had  done  it. 

Then  Mrs.  Seddon  tells  you  the  story  about  this  purchase,  and  the 
putting  of  the  four  fly-papers  into  the  soup  plate.  I  shall  examine  that 
carefully,  of  course,  as  I  quite  agree  it  deserves  careful  examination.  What 
I  am  now  directing  your  attention  to  is  this,  that  not  only  is  no  question 
ever  put  about  it,  but  every  witness  who  has  been  asked  about  the 
fly-papers  called  by  the  Crown,  every  one  of  whom  having  been  cross- 
examined  about  seeing  fly-papers  in  that  room,  with  one  exception,  the 
father,  whose  evidence  I  will  call  attention  to  in  a  moment,  denied  having 
seen  them.  Who  would  be  the  people  who  would  see  the  fly-papers  in 
that  room?  Remember  what  is  said  according  to  Mrs.  Seddon's  story 
now — there  were  fly-papers  in  the  room  from  the  4th  or  5th  of  September. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — Bought  on  the  4th. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  will  take  it  whichever  day  my  learned 
friend  likes.  I  thought  she  said  she  was  not  sure  whether  it  was  the  4th 
or  the  5th. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — You  are  quite  right,  they  were  not  used  until 
the  5th. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Very  well,  bought  on  the  4th  and  used  on 
the  5th,  as  my  learned  friend  says.  I  will  accept  that.  They  were  used 
from  the  5th.  The  story  is  now  put  forward,  advisedly  I  say,  for  the 
first  time  in  the  defence,  when  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  go  into  the  box, 
that  these  four  fly-papers  were  put  into  four  separate  saucers  in  the 
room  and  remained  there  until  after  14th  September,  after  the  death  of 
Miss  Barrow.  That  is  the  case.  Now,  who  were  the  people  who  would 
have  seen  them  if  they  were  there?  They  say  the  four  fly-papers  were  there 
until  the  14th,  but  the  papers  on  the  12th,  as  you  remember,  had  been 
changed  from  the  four  saucers  and  put  into  a  soup  plate.  I  am  going 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


to  refer  to  that  more  in  detail  in  a  moment.  Now,  who  were  the  people 
who  would  have  seen  those  fly-papers?  Who  has  been  asked  about  them? 
The  boy  Ernest  Grant,  I  should  have  thought,  could  not  possibly  have 
missed  them.  According  to  their  story  there  are  fly-papers  in  the  room 
in  which  he  is  sleeping,  from  5th  September  right  up  to  the  night  of  the 
13th,  when,  as  you  know,  he  goes  into  his  own  room  somewhere  about 
three  o'clock  in  the  morning.  This  boy  is  asked  whether  he  had  ever  seen 
them  in  his  life,  and  his  answer  is  that  he  had  never  seen  these  papers. 
He  had  once  in  his  life  seen  fly-papers,  and  that  was  at  Southend.  They 
were  not  arsenical  fly-papers,  they  were  sticky  fly-papers.  You  remember 
a  Mather's  fly-paper  was  handed  to  him,  and  he  said  he  had  never  seen 
a  fly-paper  of  that  kind  before  in  his  life.  Now,  if  there  was  the  boy 
living  in  that  room,  living  there  from  5th  September  to  14th  September, 
my  submission  to  you  is  that  he  would  have  been  the  first  to  have 
noticed  anything  new,  attracted  by  wondering  what  it  was,  as  children 
are.  Who  else  ought  to  have  noticed  them?  Chater,  the  girl,  who  has 
been  the  subject  of  so  much  attack  in  this  case,  has  given  her  evidence 
before  you.  You  will  judge  whether  or  not  she  was  telling  the  truth  in 
her  story  that  she  never  saw  fly-papers — she  never  saw  arsenical  fly-papers, 
or  fly-papers,  at  any  time  there.  All  that  was  asked  her  was  whether  she 
had  seen  them.  Dr.  Sworn — it  is  most  important  that  he  should  have 
seen  them.  Dr.  Sworn  has  given  his  evidence,  and  he  says  when  he 
came  to  the  house  he  never  saw  so  many  flies  about.  It  is  a  remarkable 
thing  if  that  is  the  case  he  never  noticed  the  fly-papers.  Then,  of  course, 
I  quite  appreciate,  and  I  think  it  right  to  make  the  observation,  that  he 
may  have  been  there  and  may  not  have  noticed  in  any  way  that  there 
were  fly-papers  once,  if  you  like,  or  twice;  but  it  is  an  odd  thing  that 
if  his  attention  was  directed  to  the  large  number  of  flies  that  were  there 
— and  as  he  naturally  would  be  looking  to  the  comfort  of  his  patient — that 
he  never  sees  them.  The  only  person  who  says  anything  about  them  is 
Mr.  Seddon,  senior,  who  is  asked  about  them.  I  do  not  know  whether 
you  remember  his  evidence,  but  it  was  very  halting  on  the  point.  It 
is  on  the  second  day. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — He  thought  he  saw  some  in  August. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — In  point  of  fact,  nobody  suggests  that  there 
were  ever  any  there  in  August  in  the  room — the  case  for  the  defence  is 
that  they  were  not  there.  That  is  what  he  told  us.  He  was  pressed  by 
my  learned  friend  to  say  that  he  had  seen  a  fly-paper  upon  the  mantelpiece, 
but  he  would  not  go  so  far. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — I  put  it  to  him  later. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Yes,  you  were  cross-examining  him,  and  you 
put  it  to  him  later.  He  is  asked  about  it,  and  he  says,  oh,  no,  he  cannot 
say  at  all,  he  will  not  go  so  far  as  that.  He  does,  very  haltingly,  as  I 
suggest  to  you,  in  a  very  difficult  position  here  for  a  father,  say  he  thinks 
he  did  see  some,  as  my  lord  says,  in  August.  Well,  he  is  wrong  in  that. 
When  the  specific  thing  is  put  to  him  as  to  whether  he  ever  saw  any  on 
the  mantelpiece,  he  cannot  say  he  did;  he  cannot  even  go  so  far  as  that. 
Therefore  you  have  got  this  remarkable  state  of  things,  that  according  to 
the  story  told  now  with  these  four  saucers  containing  fly-papers  from 
5th  September  to  12th  September  not  a  single  one  of  these  witnesses  whom 
362 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

•we  have  called  have  seen  them.  Why  is  it  that  that  story,  as  I  suggest  to 
you,  is  invented  about  the  purchase  of  these  fly-papers  on  5th  September? 

Something  has  to  be  put  forward  to  account  for  Margaret  Seddon 
having  gone  to  Price's  shop  on  the  6th  December,  two  days  after  the  arrest 
of  the  father.  Something  evidently  must  be  put  forward  to  explain  why 
that  girl  should  have  gone  to  the  shop  to  purchase  these  arsenical  fly- 
papers. Some  explanation  must  be  attempted,  otherwise  it  stands  as  the 
clearest  possible  oorroboration  of  the  story  that  she  had  been  buying 
arsenical  fly-papers  in  August,  1911,  and  the  moment  Mr.  Seddon 
was  arrested  he  knew  quite  well  where  the  arsenic  had  come  from.  He 
knew  his  danger;  he  knew'  his  difficulty;  and  he  sees  his  solicitor  that 
day,  and  as  the  result  of  that  the  arsenical  fly-papers  are  purchased.  Of 
course,  if  that  remained  unexplained,  nobody  could  suggest  why  Margaret 
should  have  been  sent  into  the  shop  on  6th  December. 

You  get  the  story  put  forward  now,  and,  as  I  am  going  to  submit  to 
you,  it  is  put  forward  with  a  twofold  purpose.  I  have  dealt  up  to  now  with 
the  reason  why  you  should  disbelieve  the  story  that  Margaret  Seddon  did 
not  buy  these  fly-papers  on  26th  August,  and  why  you  should  believe 
Thorley's  story,  that  she  did.  Now,  let  me  deal  with  the  other  part  of  Mrs. 
Seddon's  story  about  it.  She  gives  you  an  account  which  I  suggest  to  you 
is  a  very,  very  difficult  one  to  accept,  except  upon  one  theory,  that  the 
putting  of  the  fly-papers  into  that  soup  plate  was  done  with  a  very  definite 
purpose.  Her  story,  as  told  to  us  for  the  first  time  in  the  witness-box 
when  she  was  called — a  story  that  no  human  being  in  this  Court  had  heard 
suggested  before — was,  that  having  had  these  four  fly-papers  in  the  four 
saucers  on  Tuesday,  12th  September,  she  comes  into  the  room,  and  for 
some  reason,  having  broken  one  of  the  saucers,  she  says  then  she  was  not 
going  to  be  bothered  with  them  any  more,  and  for  convenience  she  puts 
them  into  a  soup  plate.  She  goes  downstairs  to  fetch  the  soup  plate,  on 
her  own  story.  A  most  remarkable  thing  to  have  done  if  all  that  she 
wanted  was,  for  convenience  sake,  to  change  the  one  into  the  other. 
However,  she  gets  the  soup  plate,  having  gone  down  for  the  express 
purpose  of  fetching  it,  as  she  has  told  us,  and  then,  having  got  that  soup 
plate  into  that  room,  she  takes  the  four  papers,  the  one  that  had  been 
in  the  saucer  that  was  broken  and  the  other  three,  and  she  puts  the  whole 
four  of  them  on  to  the  soup  plate.  It  is  very  difficult  to  follow.  Every 
fly-paper  that  is  on  that  soup  plate  will  substantially  cover  it.  As  you 
put  them  on  the  soup  plate  you  very  nearly  cover  the  whole  of  the  plate, 
except  part  of  the  rim  no  doubt.  What  is  the  point  of  putting  four  on  it? 
It  is  not  because  the  flies  had  not  been  killed.  I  could  understand  if  that 
could  be  suggested,  but  her  own  story  is  that  when  she  was  doing  that 
the  flies  had  already  been  nearly  all  killed,  or  at  any  rate,  to  use  the  exact 
expression  that  she  used,  not  to  do  her  any  injustice,  "  The  flies  had  nearly 
all  disappeared."  Then  why  was  the  solution  to  be  made  stronger?  What 
was  the  point  of  putting  four  on  to  that  one  soup  plate  and  pouring  the 
water  on?  I  have  no  doubt  it  has  occurred  to  you  what  the  suggestion  is, 
and  why  that  is  put  forward — a  very  skilful  and  a  very  ingenious  theory, 
and,  of  course,1  used  with  all  the  power  which  my  learned  friend  possesses, 
in  suggesting  to  you  that  what  had  happened  was  that  by  putting  this 
soup  plate  with  the  four  arsenical  papers  on  to  the  table  between  the  two 

363 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

windows,  this  woman  had  got  out  of  bed,  and  had,  somehow  or  other, 
drunk  the  water  which  was  on  the  top  of  the  fly-papers ;  that  is  the  sugges- 
tion to  account  for  this  woman's  death  by  arsenic.  That  is  what  the  case 
means.  That  is  why  it  is  that,  of  course,  great  importance  is  attached 
to  the  four  arsenical  fly-papers  on  the  table  between  the  two  windows. 

My  learned  friend's  case  about  it,  and  I  have  followed  it  very  carefully, 
is  that  either  this  was  the  result  of  an  accident,  or  it  may  have  been  some- 
thing else;  he  did  not  use  those  words,  but  that  was  suggested  also  during 
the  course  of  the  case.  The  view  put  forward  is  that  this  was  self- 
administered  by  her  or  at  one  time  (I  do  not  pause  to  dwell  much  upon 
this  in  view  of  the  evidence),  that  it  was  accidentally  administered  by  Chater. 
Those  are  the  views  which  are  put  forward  to  you  to  explain  the  undoubted 
fact  that  we  know,  if  nothing  else,  from  the  state  of  preservation  of  the 
body  according  to  the  medical  evidence  that  I  referred  to  yesterday,  that 
this  woman  died  from  acute  arsenical  poisoning.  You  are  face  to  face  with 
that  fact.  We  cannot  get  away  from  it,  gentlemen.  We  cannot  shrink 
from  it.  We  are  face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  that  woman  died  not  from 
epidemic  diarrhoea,  but  from  acute  arsenical  poisoning,  from  arsenic  which 
was  administered  to  her  in  that  house,  because  from  what  was  found  in  that 
house  she  could  have  only  taken  the  last  dose — the  fatal  dose — within  some 
forty -eight  hours  of  the  death;  it  cannot  have  been  longer  than  that. 
Therefore  during  the  time  that  she  is  lying  upstairs  in  her  bed  with  this 
illness  upon  her,  this  arsenic  had  got  into  her  body,  and  it  killed  her. 
The  suggestion  that  is  made  to  you  is  she  had  taken  it  herself  by  drinking 
the  water  which  was  in  the  soup  plate. 

I  want  to  say  one  word  about  that.  According  to  the  evidence  which 
has  been  given,  it  is  not  a  question  of  putting  water  on  the  top  of  these 
fly-papers.  There  seems  to  have  been  a  complete  misapprehension.  What 
happens  is,  these  fly-papers  are  moistened;  that  is  what  she  says.  She 
was  told  what  had  to  be  done  with  them — they  had  to  be  moistened,  and, 
of  course,  it  appears  on  the  printed  directions  on  the  fly-paper  which  have 
been  read  to  you.  They  are  moistened;  a  little  water  is  poured  on  them, 
and  there  is  an  end  of  it.  From  time  to  time  during  the  hot  weather 
fresh  water  is  put  on  them  to  moisten  them.  During  the  whole  course  of 
this  case  so  far,  what  seems  to  have  been  forgotten  is  that  there  is  plenty 
of  water  in  her  room.  No  one  has  suggested  that  she  had  not  any  water  in 
her  room.  According  to  the  evidence,  there  were  two  jugs  on  the  wash- 
stand  with  water  in  them,  there  was  the  water  bottle  with  water  in  it  and 
the  glass,  and  there  was,  according  to  Mr.  Seddon's  evidence,  a  syphon 
of  soda  which  stood  there.  For  what  reason  this  woman  got  up  and  licked 
— because  that  is  what  it  must  come  to — the  water  off  these  fly-papers, 
it  is  impossible  to  understand.  There  was  brandy  by  the  side  of  her,  and 
there  was  soda  water  by  the  side  of  her — everything  she  could  want. 

That  is  the  only  explanation  and  the  only  suggestion  that  could  be  put 
forward,  and  which  is  put  forward  by  the  defence,  with  the  addition,  as 
I  have  already  stated,  of  the  suggestion  that  Chater  may  have  accidentally 
administered  it.  Now,  we  know  this  about  Chater,  and  this  appears  to 
be  now  absolutely  contradicted — Chater  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
waiting  upon  this  woman  during  her  illness,  and  she  had  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  cooking  of  her  food.  There  is  a  conflict  of  testimony  as 
364 


Closing  Speech   for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

to  whether  she  prepared  the  tea  for  her.  Chater  emphatically  says  that 
she  did  not,  but  it  is  a  statement  in  this  case  which  is  beyond  dispute  that 
this  woman  was  not  allowed  to  take  tea  for  at  least  the  last  four  days 
before  her  death,  and,  as  the  fatal  dose  of  arsenic  was  administered  within 
at  least  forty -eight  hours  of  the  death,  and  tea  was  never  given  to  her 
during  the  last  four  days,  the  suggestion  comes  to  nothing.  The  sugges- 
tion is  that  Chater  had  prepared  tea  for  her  in  the  earliest  days,  but  it  is 
proved  to  demonstration  that  Chater  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
administration  of  arsenic  to  this  woman.  I  have  gone  into  this  in  a  little 
detail,  because  it  is  due  to  this  girl  Chater  that  it  should  be  done.  It  ia 
not  right  that  the  suggestion  should  remain,  however  much  my  friend  may 
strive  to  moderate  it.  He  cannot  get  away  from  this,  that  the  suggestion  is, 
or  was  at  one  time,  that  she  did  do  it.  I  think  as  the  case  proceeded  that 
suggestion  was  dropped,  and  certainly  you  have  heard  very  little  of  it  at 
the  end  of  the  case;  but,  for  the  reasons  I  have  just  given  to  you,  if  you 
accept  the  whole  of  the  evidence  against  Chater,  it  is  not  anything  that 
Chater  did  that  could  have  been  the  cause  of  the  administration  of  this 
arsenic.  What  it  comes  to,  and  what  my  submission  to  you  upon  it  is, 
is  this,  that  on  the  26th  August  you  have  got  the  purchase  by  Margaret 
Seddon,  and  you  have  got  the  introduction  of  the  fly-papers  into  the  house. 

My  learned  friend  says,  "  How  could  Mr.  Seddon  have  got  to  know 
what  arsenic  there  was  in  the  fly-papers,  and  what  effect  it  would  have?  " 
I  should  not  have  thought  that  was  very  difficult;  I  should  not  have 
thought  that  any  man  who  was  capable,  as  Seddon  undoubtedly  was,  of 
drawing  up  legal  documents,  who  has  studied,  as  he  told  us,  would  have 
found  any  difficulty  in  understanding  that,  more  particularly  as  on  the 
fly-papers  themselves  it  says  they  have  to  be  kept  out  of  the  reach  of 
children.  It  is  known,  of  course,  that  they  are  poisonous,  but  if  they  are 
introduced  into  the  house  at  the  end  of  August,  1911,  it  becomes  much  more 
easy  to  understand  why  it  is  that  this  woman  was  taken  ill  at  the  beginning 
of  September. 

I  notice  my  learned  friend  has  made  some  observations  about  the  case 
for  the  prosecution  having  shifted,  that  at  first  it  was  only  said  it  was  this 
last  dose  that  had  been  administered,  and  not  the  suggestion  it  was  more. 
Well,  my  learned  friend  is  wrong  with  regard  to  that.  The  great  stress 
of  the  case  has  been  laid  on  what  has  been  called  the  fatal  dose  administered 
within  the  last  forty-eight  hours.  Of  course,  that  is  so,  because  it  is 
that  which  necessarily,  according  to  the  case  as  put  forward,  killed  her, 
and  it  is  the  administration  of  that  dose  which  is  the  murder.  Everything 
has  been  laid  upon  that.  The  evidence  of  Dr.  Willcox,  a  gentleman  whose 
honesty  is  vouched  for  by  everybody  who  has  to  do  with  the  case,  in- 
cluding my  learned  friend  as  well  as  myself,  is  that  from  the  distribution 
of  arsenic  in  the  body,  in  all  probability  arsenic  must  have  been  adminis- 
tered within  a  few  days  before  the  last  fatal  dose.  He  says  that  the 
symptoms  of  gastro-enteritis  are  exactly  the  same  which  you  would  find 
in  a  case  of  arsenical  poisoning,  and  he  says  all  that  he  found  is  consistent 
with  an  earlier  dose  having  been  administered  which  had  not  proved  fatal. 
In  this  case  what  we  are  concerned  with,  of  course,  and  very  materially, 
is  the  fatal  dose.  As  the  evidence  stands,  and  with  the  purchase  on 
26th  August,  it  does  look,  as  I  suggest  for  your  consideration,  without 

365 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

scientific  knowledge  of  the  amount  of  arsenic  which  there  was  in  the  fly- 
papers, or  which  it  would  take  to  kill,  that  a  dose  had  been  administered 
(that  is  consistent  with  the  whole  of  the  scientific  testimony  upon  this 
case  which  is  undisputed),  but  that  it  had  not  proved  fatal,  and  that  she 
was  recovering.  A  doctor  was  called  in.  He  had  to  be  called  in, 
because  it  would  not  have  been  safe  for  him  not  to  have  been  called  in. 
He  finds  the  patient  suffering  from  pains  in  the  stomach,  vomiting,  and 
diarrhoea,  and  he  diagnoses  it,  as  I  have  no  doubt  a  vast  number  of  doctors, 
if  not  all,  would  do  at  first  sight,  as  a  plain  case  of  gastro-enteritis  or 
epidemic  diarrhoea.  There  are  no  means  for  his  discovering  arsenic.  He 
does  not  suspect  that  there  is  any  arsenic  poisoning.  Why  should  he? 
The  result  is  that  he  goes  on  attending  the  patient.  The  patient  seems 
to  be  recovering.  Then  comes  this  fatal  dose,  given  at  some  time  within 
the  forty-eight  hours.  Gentlemen,  of  course  my  learned  friends  have 
both  made,  as  they  are  entitled  to,  all  the  capital  they  can  out  of  the 
fact  that  we  were  not  able  to  give  direct  evidence  of  the  administration 
of  the  dose.  That  is  quite  true.  That  is  why  it  is  that  this  case  has 
necessarily  occupied  more  time  than  cases  of  this  kind  usually  do,  because 
it  does  depend  upon  indirect  evidence — upon  circumstantial  evidence. 
What  we  have  shown  you  is  at  least  this.  It  is  not  disputed,  and  cannot 
be  disputed,  that  there  was  every  opportunity  for  doing  it,  and,  more- 
over, we  have  shown  you  that  the  arsenic  was  brought  into  the  house — 
we  have  shown  you  that  it  was  there. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — My  learned  friend  ought  not  to  say  that.  He 
says  that  it  was  proved  the  arsenic  was  brought  into  the  house.  He  will 
not  accept  our  proof.  He  says  our  evidence  is  not  true.  I  do  not  think 
there  is  any  proof  that  Margaret  ever  brought  any  papers  into  the  house, 
even  if  she  did  purchase  them.  My  learned  friend  will  not  accept  that 
because  he  says  Seddon  destroyed  them. 

v  v 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Gentlemen,  let  us  understand  what  that 
interruption  means.  My  learned  friend  says  that  there  is  no  proof  that 
Margaret  Seddon  brought  fly-papers  into  the  house.  What  did  he  think 
Margaret  Seddon  was  buying  them  for  on  26th  August?  Was  it  to  throw 
them  into  the  street?  Was  it  to  give  away?  Did  she  go  into  that  shop  to 
ask  for  four  packets  of  fly-papers  at  3d.  each  to  tear  them  up  when  she 
came  out?  What  is  the  fair  and  reasonable  inference  that  every  man 
would  draw?  This  girl  is  employed  in  the  house — to  run  errands  for 
Mrs.  Seddon,  eating,  drinking,  and  sleeping  in  the  house,  and  attending 
to  the  household  duties  in  the  house.  Is  not  it  a  fair  inference  if  she 
buys  fly-papers  that  they  would  be  brought  back  to  the  house?  Gentle- 
men, I  will  not  say  more  with  reference  to  my  learned  friend's  interruption 
— and  I  do  not  complain  of  it — than  this.  If  all  the  interruption  means, 
as  I  followed  it,  that  he  objects  to  my  saying  that  it  is  proved  that 
arsenic  was  introduced  into  the  house,  because  I  have  proved  that  Mar- 
garet Seddon  bought  arsenic  papers,  well,  I  will  not  waste  another  word 
about  it,  because  I  should  have  thought  that  it  was  the  only  possible 
inference  that,  if  she  did  buy  them,  they  must  have  been  introduced  into 
the  house.  My  learned  friend  says  I  do  not  accept  his  story.  That  is 
perfectly  true;  I  do  not.  But  the  story  which  is  told  by  Mrs.  Seddon,  if 
accepted  as  true,  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  destroy  the  story  that 

366 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

I  am  putting  to  you.  If  her  story  is  true,  that  she  bought  these  fly- 
papers on  the  date  that  she  says,  and  had  used  them  as  she  says,  it 
does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  get  rid  of  the  fact  that  four  packets  of 
fly-papers  had  been  asked  for  on  26th  August  of  Mr.  Thorley,  and  it  is  not 
explained  why  that  should  have  happened. 

You  have  heard  how  this  could  have  been  administered.  I  am  not 
in  a  position  to  state  exactly  how  it  was  done.  My  learned  friends  are 
entitled  to  make  the  most  of  that,  but  I  am  in  the  position  of  saying 
how  it  could  have  been  done,  and  I  have  shown  you  that  it  could  have 
been  administered  either  in  Valentine's  meat  juice  or  in  brandy,  particularly 
in  the  condition  in  which  she  was.  You  have  seen  the  two  bottles  pro- 
duced, and  you  can  judge  for  yourselves.  You  have  seen  how  much  one 
is  like  the  other — how  the  Valentine's  meat  juice  or  brandy  would  look 
with  water,  and  how  it  would  look  with  a  solution  of  arsenical  fly-papers. 
But  I  do  think  there  is  one  piece  of  evidence  which  my  learned  friend  has 
called,  which,  at  any  rate,  assists  one  somewhat  to  a  conclusion  in  this 
case.  Apparently  he  says  that  Miss  Barrow  had  at  one  time,  certainly 
up  to  March,  1906,  been  addicted  to  alcohol.  Apparently  the  brandy  in 
this  case  was  ordered  for  her.  Dr.  Sworn,  you  will  remember,  says  that 
when  he  came  on  the  llth  he  ordered  her  brandy,  and  so  from  that  time 
she  must  have  had  that.  We  know  that  when  Mrs.  Vonderahe  saw  Mr. 
Seddon  that  Mr.  Seddon  himself  said  that  he  did  give  her  brandy.  I 
agree  that  the  brandy  was  given  on  the  night  of  the  13th,  but  the  fair 
view  is  that  she  must  have  been  taking  brandy  from  an  earlier  date, 
because  you  remember  the  explanation  that  was  given  of  the  bottle ; 
there  was  only  a  very  little  left  in  it  on  the  night  of  the  13th,  and  that 
little  was  gone  by  the  morning  of  the  14th,  when  she  died.  You  had 
the  bottle  described  to  you.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  caught  more 
fully  than  I  did  the  description  of  it ;  I  am  not  sure  that  I  heard  it.  We 
cannot  deny  that  there  was  at  one  time  plenty  of  brandy.  Mrs.  Seddon 
was  constantly  in  attendance  there,  and  Mr.  Seddon  could  come  up  at  any 
time  and  at  any  moment.  He  did  come  there  on  various  occasions.  And, 
of  course,  the  fatal  dose  could  have  been  given  at  any  time  within,  as  we 
know  now,  the  last  forty-eight  hours  from  what  was  found  in  the  stomach 
and  in  the  intestines. 

Just  let  us  see  what  happens  on  this  night  of  the  13th.  Just  before 
I  do  that  I  want  to  say  one  or  two  words  about  what  happens  on  the 
llth.  The  llth  is  the  day  of  the  will.  That  is  a  curious  story.  Here 
is  this  old  lady,  propped  up  with  pillows  in  her  bed  in  order  to  be  able 
to  sign  this  will.  According  to  the  doctor's  evidence,  he  heard  nothing 
about  making  a  will  either  then  or  after.  Her  mental  condition  was  not 
very  satisfactory ;  that  is  the  view  which  Dr.  Sworn  has  given.  I  think 
my  learned  friend,  both  at  the  Police  Court  and  here,  said  that  Dr.  Sworn 
had  said  he  did  not  think  that  she  was  in  a  mental  condition  to  make 
a  will,  and  he  went  on  to  explain  that,  unless  it  was  very  carefully  ex- 
plained to  her,  she  would  not  be  able  to  take  it  in.  I  am  not  going  to 
dwell  at  any  length  upon  what  happened  on  that  date,  except  just  to  say 
something  to  you  about  the  will  itself.  It  is  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Seddon. 
It  is  a  very  useful  document  if  it  means  to  dispose  of  all  the  property  that 
this  woman  had,  and  you  see  all  that  it  does  dispose  of  is  her  personal 

367 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

belongings  and  the  furniture  and  jewellery.  It  is  said  that  that  was  the 
property  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Grant,  and  she  was  intending  to  give  it  to  Hilda 
and  Ernest  Grant,  but  it  clearly  was  not,  because  it  deals  with  all  the 
property  and  all  the  effects  which  she  had ;  we  know  on  the  evidence  that 
it  included  some  things  which  had  not  belonged  to  the  Grants  at  all,  and 
certainly  the  clothing  and  things  of  that  kind  had  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  Grants.  What  it  indicates  is  the  intention  of  this  woman 
to  give  what  she  had  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant.  Of  course,  if  there  had 
not  been  all  this  inquiry  the  will  made  on  the  llth  September  would 
appear  to  be  in  order.  It  would  look,  if  you  came  to  examine  into  it,  as 
if  she  knew  perfectly  well  that  she  had  nothing  but  personal  belongings 
to  leave,  which  she  had  left  with  Mr.  Seddon  as  executor  and  trustee  for 
these  two  children.  I  have  been  unable  to  follow  from  the  evidence  what 
is  the  explanation  of  making  this  will  on  the  llth.  If  this  woman  was  very 
ill  on  the  llth,  and  was  in  fear  of  death,  and  wanted  a  will  made  hurriedly 
one  follows  it,  but  that  is  not  the  view  which  is  put  forward.  The 
view  presented  by  the  defence  is,  "  Oh,  no,  there  was  nothing  the  matter 
with  her  on  that  day ;  she  was  quite  all  right,  but  she  wanted  to  make 
her  will,  and  she  wanted  Mr.  Seddon  to  do  it,  and  Mr.  Seddon  did  it." 

I  pass  now  to  the  13th,  of  which  you  have  heard  so  much,  that  I  am 
going  to  say  very  little  about  it.  You  remember  the  incidents  as  they 
arise  on  this  most  awful,  horrible  night,  which  we  have  heard  described  in 
this  Court  necessarily  so  many  times.  You  have  got  the  history  of  that 
night,  and  nobody  but  Miss  Barrow  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  could  give 
us  the  true  story,  but  we  know  something  of  what  happened.  The  first 
thing  is  this,  that  on  the  night  of  the  13th  she  is  ill.  I  should  go  a  little 
earlier,  as  it  is  important ;  in  the  morning  she  is  worse ;  that  is  Dr. 
Sworn's  evidence.  That  is  the  condition  then  from  that  time  onward. 
She  is  having  pains,  she  is  having  this  diarrhoea,  and  that  continues.  I 
think  some  one  said  that  the  sickness  was  not  as  bad.  It  goes  on,  and 
in  the  evening  of  the  13th  she  is  evidently  worse.  Mr.  Seddon  comes 
in ;  he  has  been  out  to  some  theatre.  When  he  comes  in  he  hears  that 
this  woman,  who,  upon  the  evidence  before  you,  has  only  made  her  will 
two  days  before,  and  who  was  worse  on  the  morning  of  the  13th,  had 
said,  "  I  am  dying."  Upon  that  there  is  some  discussion.  He  says 
that  his  wife  did  not  believe  it,  and  smiled.  She  says  it  was  a  nervous 
smile.  I  do  not  know  which  it  was,  and  he  does  not  know.  At  any  rate, 
the  effect  upon  him,  who  must  have  known  his  wife's  smile,  was,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  statement,  that  she  treated  it  as  of  no  account.  That  is  his 
view,  that  Miss  Barrow  was  exaggerating. 

Then  you  get  this  series  of  incidents  of  going  up  three  times  and 
finding  this  woman  worse,  in  awful  pain,  with  all  the  symptoms  which  have 
been  described  to  you  so  often,  until  it  culminates  in  this  little  boy 
shouting  out  "  Chickie  is  out  of  bed,"  or  words  to  that  effect,  and  she 
said,  "  I  am  going."  Picture  to  yourself  this  unfortunate  woman  in 
agony  getting  weaker,  and  no  doubt  the  poison  working  its  full  effect. 
This  poor,  unfortunate  woman  is  sitting  on  the  ground  holding  herself  in 
agony,  and  the  boy  terrified,  as  we  know  he  was  from  the  evidence  that 
has  been  given,  doing  his  best  to  hold  her  up.  According  to  the  evidence 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon  came  up.  I  am  not  sure  whether  it  was  on  that 
368 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

occasion  that  she  put  some  hot  flannels  on  or  not.  For  the  purpose  of 
my  case  it  does  not  make  any  difference;  I  will  deal  with  the  incidents. 
Later  she  is  helped  into  bed.  No  explanation  of  any  sort  or  kind  from 
Miss  Barrow  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Seddon,  on  their  own  statement.  Then  the 
boy  is  sent  to  his  own  room  and  they  remain  there. 

Then  you  have  heard  about  the  one  and  a  half  to  two  hours'  snoring. 
It  is  not  quite  easy  to  get  at  the  true  effect  of  the  evidence  on  that  night, 
but  I  have  looked  at  it  very  carefully,  and,  of  course,  my  lord  has  his 
notes.  If  I  may  say  so,  with  respect,  I  observe  he  followed  it  with  very 
close  attention,  and  if  he  thinks  what  I  am  saying  is  wrong  he  will  correct 
it.  The  prisoner  Seddon  emphatically  stated  at  the  start  that  she  snored; 
his  words  were,  "Sleeping  peacefully;  snoring  for  an  hour  and  a  half  to 
two  hours."  That  was  the  beginning  of  it.  He  was  cross-examined  about 
that,  and  he  was  pressed.  I  asked  what  sort  of  snoring  it  was,  and  you 
remember  he  gave  an  illustration.  He  was  asked  why  he  did  not  fetch  a 
doctor  in  those  circumstances,  or  why  he  did  not  do  something  on  hearing 
a  snore  like  that?  My  learned  friend  had  described  the  snoring  as 
"stertorous  breathing";  that  is  a  phrase  introduced  by  him,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  correctly — it  was  stertorous  breathing — "  snoring,"  as  they  call  it. 
I  would  ask  you  to  picture  to  yourself  what  happened  on  that  night  when 
they  are  up  there  listening  to  this.  If  it  is  true  that  the  woman  was  sleeping 
peacefully,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  the  man  did  not  go  down  to  bed. 
He  had  got  a  busy  day  the  next  day,  Thursday,  as  it  was  his  office  day — 
the  day  on  which  he  had  most  to  do.  The  only  explanation  which  has  been 
given  to  me  is  that  he  wanted  to  stop  up  with  his  wife.  Of  course,  you 
will  consider  that  explanation  in  conjunction  with  the  rest,  and  consider  it 
in  the  light  of  all  the  circumstances.  He  stays  outside  that  door  with  the 
door  open  so  that  he  can  see  what  is  going  on  in  that  room.  He  is  smoking 
and  he  is  reading  a  paper,  and  at  times,  as  he  tells  us,  he  is  going  down 
to  look  after  the  baby  and  to  get  a  drink.  My  submission  to  you,  which 
I  ask  you  to  take  into  consideration,  is  that  he  was  waiting  up  that  night 
with  his  wife  because  he  knew  the  end  could  not  be  far  off;  he  knew  that 
the  end  was  approaching,  and  he  could  not  leave  his  wife,  and  probably 
she  would  not  stay  alone  to  see  it.  Somebody  must  be  there.  The  wife 
sits  up  through  it.  The  husband  stays  outside  the  door.  That,  I  submit 
to  you,  is  an  explanation  of  why  he  does  not  go  down  to  bed. 

Then  the  end  comes.  Do  let  us  examine  the  story  with  regard  to  it. 
There  are  really  three  stories  that  have  been  given  of  that  end.  It  is  a 
gruesome  story,  and  one  upon  which  I  do  not  want  to  dwell  at  any  length, 
but  this  is  the  story,  according  to  Mr.  Seddon ;  he  was  standing  outside, 
and  he  heard  the  snoring  going  on,  and  all  of  a  sudden  it  ceases.  He  hears 
nothing  more,  and  he  says,  "  Good  God,  she  is  dead,"  and  then  he  lifts 
an  eyelid  and  sees  that  she  is  dead.  He  is  pressed  about  that,  and  he  says 
that  before  that  his  wife  had  tied  up  the  jaw.  The  wife  gives  a  different 
story.  That  was  a  night  upon  which  I  should  have  thought  there  could 
be  no  doubt.  The  wife's  story  is  that  she  sat  dozing;  she  does  not  seem 
to  know  very  much  about  what  did  happen;  she  was,  as  my  learned  friend 
said,  sleeping  tired.  According  to  her  account  the  breathing  stopped 
suddenly,  and  her  husband  lifted  an  eyelid  and  said,  "  Good  God,  she  is 
dead  " ;  but  she  said  she  was  uncertain  as  to  whether  she  was  dead  or  not. 
i  A  369 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


Now,  gentlemen,  just  imagine  that  state  of  things.  She  had  not  tied  up  the 
jaw.  Seddon's  story  is  wrong  with  regard  to  that.  There  cannot  be  any 
mistake;  he  cannot  say  that  he  was  uncertain  she  was  dead,  and  there- 
fore he  did  not  want  to  know  anything  more  at  all  about  it,  or  any  medical 
man  to  know.  Then  I  have  said  she  may  be  mistaken  about  it,  as  she 
admitted  that  if  she  had  tied  up  the  jaw  she  would  have  known  perfectly  well 
the  woman  was  dead.  She  did  not  know  that,  because,  according  to  her 
story,  she  went  down  and  said  that  she  thought  the  woman  was  dead.  Do 
see  what  happens  when  her  husband  went  away.  Here  is  this  woman,  who 
is  not  expected  to  die,  according  to  the  story  she  is  now  putting  forward 
to-day  (the  doctor  did  not  expect  her  to  die,  because,  according  to  him,  she 
was  not  in  a  critical  condition),  all  of  a  sudden  dies,  and  the  husband  then 
goes  to  the  doctor.  The  story  he  tells  to  the  doctor,  according  to  the  doctor, 
is  worthy  of  your  consideration.  It  has  passed  no  doubt  from  your  recol- 
lection, as  it  is  a  considerable  time  ago  since  it  was  said,  but  this  is  his 
account  of  it — "  The  husband  came  to  me  about  seven  o'clock.  I  asked 
him  how  she  was;  he  said  she  was  taken  in  a  lot  of  pain — seemed  to  have 
a  lot  of  pain  in  her  inside,  and  then  she  went  off  a  sort  of  insensible.  They 
had  been  up  all  night  with  her.  She  had  been  in  a  considerable  amount  of 
pain,  and  then  went  off  in  a  sort  of  unconscious  insensible."  A  very 
different  story  from  what  he  has  told  here.  According  to  their  story,  she 
is  sleeping  peacefully,  and  then  suddenly  dies. 

Then,  gentlemen,  you  have  the  account  of  what  happens  with  Dr. 
Sworn.  I  am  not  going  to  make  any  reflection  upon  Dr.  Sworn,  but  I  do 
say  this,  that  it  makes  one  pause  a  little  when  you  hear  from  a  medical 
man  who  had  left  his  patient  on  the  morning  of  the  13th  not  in  a  critical 
condition,  and  whom  he  did  not  expect  to  die,  but  who  gets  a  message  the 
next  morning  at  seven  o'clock  that  the  patient  has  become  "  unconscious 
insensible,"  and  then  died,  that  he  gives  a  certificate  without  anything 
further.  If  he  did  anything  which  is  to  be  made  a  subject  of  criticism, 
that,  of  course,  must  not  reflect  upon  the  Seddons.  I  only  make  that 
observation  in  passing,  because  I  cross-examined  about  it.  Quite  under- 
stand what  I  am  saying.  If  there  is  some  criticism  to  be  visited  upon 
him — if  there  is — it  must  not  be  visited  upon  them. 

What  happened  after  that?  There  is  the  search.  Again,  you  have 
heard  so  much  about  that.  It  is  such  a  wretched  squalid  story,  and  I  am 
not  going  to  take  up  your  time  by  going  through  it.  The  search  for  gold 
is  recommenced  as  soon  as  he  comes  back,  before  anything  else  is  thought 
of,  to  find  out  how  much  money  there  was.  Mr.  Seddon  was  cross-examined 
as  to  why  he  did  not  do  what  any  honest  man  would  have  done  under  the 
circumstances — what  I  submit  to  you  any  man  who  had  nothing  to  conceal 
would  have  done,  even  if  he  was  a  wise,  shrewd,  and  astute  man,  as  we 
know  Mr.  Seddon  was.  He  sets  to  work  to  examine  the  room  before  he 
sends  a  word  to  the  relatives.  When  he  is  pressed  about  that,  he  says  he 
has  an  independent  witness.  The  independent  witness  was  Mrs.  Rutt, 
who  pawned  his  sheets  and  pillow  cases,  and  things  of  that  kind,  when  they 
were  away  on  their  holiday.  That  is  the  independent  witness  whom  he 
had  sent  for. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — They  did  not  go  for  their  holiday  until  the 
middle  of  September. 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Quite  right. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — 22nd  September. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  do  not  think  it  really  affects  the  point  I  am 
making,  although  my  learned  friend  is  quite  right  in  his  date;  I  do  not 
pay  any  attention  to  it,  and  I  do  not  think  it  matters  for  the  purpose  of 
what  I  am  putting  before  you  whether  it  was  before  or  after.  What  I  am 
upon  is  that  Mrs.  Rutt  is  put  forward  as  an  independent  witness,  and  what 
I  am  saying  is  that  this  independent  witness  was  the  witness  whom  you 
heard  had  pawned  his  things.  Some  criticism  was  directed  upon  the  cross- 
examination  of  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Muir.  Was  he  to  allow  Mrs.  Rutt 
to  be  put  forward  to  you  as  an  independent  witness,  a  person  who  was 
vouched  for  by  Mr.  Seddon,  without  asking  her  a  question  which  at  least 
throws  a  considerable  light  upon  the  amount  of  independence  which  she 
exhibited  under  the  circumstances?  So  the  result  of  the  search  you  know. 
It  is  stated  that  none  of  the  gold  except  this  £4  10s.  was  found.  You 
know  also  the  visit  to  the  undertaker's. 

I  want  to  direct  your  attention  now  to  what  I  call  the  third  stage  of  the 
circumstantial  evidence  which  I  am  putting  before  you.  I  have  called 
attention  to  the  motive  and  to  the  opportunity,  and  I  am  now  going  to 
deal  with  the  third  stage,  which  is  the  subsequent  conduct.  If  you  will 
observe  what  has  taken  place  in  the  case,  as  I  know  you  have  already, 
you  will  see  how  material  it  is  that  you  should  take  it  into  consideration 
when  you  come  to  determine  whether  or  not  this  woman  was  murdered  as 
we  say.  Nothing  whatever  is  done  during  the  whole  of  that  morning  to 
get  the  relatives  to  appear  or  to  give  them  any  notice.  Now,  I  agree  that 
apparently  the  relatives  do  not  seem  to  have  been  on  the  most  friendly 
terms.  Quite  a  justifiable  observation  on  that  was  made  by  my  learned 
friend,  but  it  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  get  rid  of  this  fact,  the 
only  relatives  of  whom  he  knows  and  to  whom  he  should  have  sent  he  did 
not  communicate  with.  The  only  explanation  that  I  have  been  able  to 
get  you  have  heard.  You  have  heard  the  whole  case,  and  you  will  be 
able  to  judge  why  he  did  not  send  round  to  the  house  to  tell  the  Vonderahes. 
His  case  is  that  some  time  after  the  Vonderahes  had  ceased  to  lodge  and 
board  Miss  Barrow  Miss  Margaret  Seddon  had  gone  round  to  the  door, 
and  the  door  had  been  slammed  in  her  face,  or  rather  rudely.  That  is  the 
whole  explanation  you  have  had.  I  pressed  him  and  asked  him,  "  With 
all  the  people  in  your  house,  why  did  not  you  send  somebody  else?  You 
could  have  got  the  father,  you  could  have  got  the  two  sons.  You  could  have 
gone  yourself."  The  only  explanation  was  that  they  had  shut  the  door 
rudely  in  Margaret's  face.  Then  it  is  said  that  he  wrote  a  letter.  You  will 
remember  the  incident  about  the  funeral.  Gentlemen,  I  am  not  going 
to  say  anything  more  about  it.  I  told  you  about  it  in  opening  the  case, 
and  I  explained  to  you  how  I  used  it.  I  pointed  out  to  you  that  its  bearing 
in  this  case  was  only  as  an  indication  of  the  man  we  are  dealing  with.  That 
now  stands  so  revealed  during  the  course  of  this  case  that  I  will  not  waste 
time  to  comment  further  upon  it.  But  Mr.  Seddon  says  he  wrote  a  letter 
upon  14th  September.  I  submit  to  you  that  that  incident  helps  to  show 
that  he  is  concealing  the  facts,  because  he  does  not  want  any  inquiry,  and 
he  does  not  want  any  examination,  because  he  knows  his  own  guilt.  He 
.says  that  on  the  14th  he  wrote;  by  some  extraordinary  coincidence  he 

37i 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

happened  to  have  two  mourning  sheets  of  paper,  and  he  wrote  a  letter, 
which  has  never  been  discovered,  and  which  no  one  has  ever  received,  and 
which  has  never  been  returned.  He  says  he  wrote  a  letter  on  the  afternoon 
of  14th  September  to  acquaint  the  Vonderahes  of  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow. 
It  is  very  curious  that  nobody  has  ever  heard  of  it.  Mr.  Smith  was  cross- 
examined  about  it.  I  noticed  my  learned  friend  yesterday  made  a  very 
extraordinary  observation  about  my  not  having  asked  Margaret  Seddon 
the  question  as  to  whether  she  had  posted  the  letter.  I  had  opened  the 
case;  I  had  proved  the  case;  I  had  made  perfectly  plain  what  the  sugges- 
tion was — that  no  such  letter  ever  was  sent,  and  my  learned  friend  called 
her,  and  he  did  not  put  the  question  to  her.  I  do  not  quite  understand 
the  reason  that  he  gave  yesterday,  or  why  he  did  not.  If  I  followed  him 
correctly,  his  suggestion  was,  what  was  the  good  of  asking  her  any  question 
when  we  had  got  a  statement  from  her  which  had  been  given  to  the  police, 
and  we  would  say  from  that  that  she  was  not  to  be  believed?  I  do  not 
know  whether  that  is  his  view;  if  it  is,  it  would  be  an  extraordinary  one, 
because  he  is  putting  her  forward  as  a  witness  of  truth.  But,  gentlemen, 
do  not  let  me  make  any  capital  out  of  it.  It  may  be — I  do  not  know — that 
it  was  passed  over,  as  sometimes  such  things  are,  by  omission.  Whether 
it  was  that  or  whether  it  was  designedly  done  I  do  not  want  to  make  any 
capital  out  of  the  fact  that  my  learned  friends  did  not  ask  Miss  Margaret 
Seddon  to  say  more  than  was  absolutely  vital.  She  is  the  daughter  of 
this  man,  and  I  should  not  have  made  any  criticism  upon  my  learned 
friend  not  having  asked  her  to  go  into  the  details  and  history  of  this  case, 
but  that  letter  remains  in  great  doubt.  In  my  submission  to  you  he  never 
sent  it,  and  he  only  wrote  it  when  the  Vonderahes  were  coming  to  him  on 
21st  September,  when  the  two  ladies  appeared  and  wanted  to  know  some- 
thing about  it.  As  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he  did  not  know  whether 
they  had  received  the  letter  or  not,  but  there  he  is  armed  with  this  copy 
which  he  produced  from  his  pocket,  and  he  says,  "  Why,  here  is  the  copy 
of  the  letter  I  wrote  to  you."  The  suggestion  he  made  to  you  was  that 
Mrs.  Vonderahe  knew  quite  well  she  had  had  it,  but  would  not  admit  it. 
I  will  not  dwell  upon  that  at  all.  You  have  seen  Mrs.  Vonderahe,  and  you 
have  heard  her  story  about  it. 

The  incidents  of  14th  September,  however,  are  important  in  another 
aspect.  On  that  date  discussions  arise  about  the  money.  Now,  it  is  a  most 
extraordinary  thing  that  14th  September  is  the  first  day  on  which,  according 
to  the  evidence,  you  find  him  dealing  with  a  lot  of  gold.  I  know  what 
has  been  said  about  Mr.  Naylor  and  Mr.  Wilson,  who  were  called,  but  they 
really,  as  I  submit  to  you,  do  not  help  at  all  in  this  case.  Their  evidence 
does  not  agree,  but  it  shows  this,  that  at  that  time  he  had  some  money, 
possibly  £100 — it  may  have  been  a  little  more — in  gold.  He  was  then 
carrying  on  a  wardrobe  business,  and  he  had  got  purchases  to  make,  and 
therefore  had  to  keep  gold  in  the  house  very  likely.  But  they  were 
speaking  of  June,  1909.  On  14th  September,  1911,  you  find  him  dealing 
with  a  considerable  amount  of  gold. 

In  opening  the  case  I  submitted  to  you,  and  I  submit  to  you  now,  that 

gold  that  he  was  dealing  with  was  Miss  Barrow's  gold,  and  nobody  else's, 

and  that  it  was  there  for  him   to   deal   with   on   that  day,    because   she 

was  dead,  and  the  jubilation  at  the  possession  of  this  money,  and  not  having 

372 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown, 

Attorney-General 

to  account  to  her  either  for  the  notes  or  for  the  gold,  or  to  pay  her  annuity, 
made  him  a  little  incautious.  My  learned  friends  both  made  criticisms  and 
comments  upon  his  conduct,  and  said  that  if  this  man  had  been  the  criminal 
that  is  suggested,  he  would  have  had  the  body  cremated ;  one  of  my  learned 
friends  said  that,  and  the  other  said  that  the  last  thing  he  would  have  done 
would  have  been  to  show  the  gold.  That  is  the  kind  of  argument  you  hear 
in  every  criminal  case  that  ever  comes  before  a  Court.  If  every  criminal 
knew  when  he  was  committing  the  crime  of  all  the  various  steps  that  he 
might  take  in  order  to  prevent  the  detection  of  the  crime,  and  had  the 
advantage  of  very  able  lawyers  to  tell  him  how  to  cover  up  his  tracks 
(which,  of  course,  they  would  not  do),  no  doubt  there  would  be  a  great 
many  more  undetected  crimes  than  at  present — there  are  enough.  That 
kind  of  argument  about  what  he  might  have  done  is  of  very  little  use,  as 
I  submit  to  you,  in  this  kind  of  case.  But  how  is  it  that  it  just  happens  to 
be  this  day,  14th  September,  when  the  body  is  still  lying  upstairs  in  the 
room,  that  you  find  him  dealing  with  this  amount  of  gold  which  hitherto 
apparently  he  had  possessed,  but  you  never  find  him  dealing  with?  You 
have  heard  the  explanation  about  the  £200  or  the  £220. 

As  my  learned  friend  said,  and  I  quite  agree,  all  this  shuffling  to  and 
fro  of  sovereigns  out  of  one  bag  into  another  is  quite  immaterial,  and 
throws  no  light  upon  it.  We  have  had  a  long  story  about  it.  I  make  no 
complaint,  but  I  say  it  does  not  help  us  at  all,  because  there  still  remains 
the  fact  that  the  money  was  there,  and  the  whole  question  is  whether  that 
money  which  was  there  was  the  money  he  had  got  from  Miss  Barrow,  or 
whether  it  was  his  own.  My  learned  friend  says  he  had  this  money,  because 
he  had  £220  which  he  had  been  using  for  a  mortgage.  Do  you  remember 
the  evidence  with  regard  to  that?  I  do  ask  you  to  take  that  into  account. 
This  acute  man  of  business,  who  knows  how  to  turn  every  penny  to  account, 
who  pays  in  a  small  sum  of  £30  in  order  that  he  should  get  the  2£  per 
cent,  interest  on  it,  who  pays  in  a  sum  of  £70  into  a  deposit  account  as 
soon  as  he  has  got  the  money,  who  never  allows  the  money  to  remain 
unremunerative,  according  to  his  case  which  he  now  has  to  set  up,  has 
£220  in  gold  which  he  is  keeping  there  idle.  For  what  purpose  does  he 
do  it,  considering  he  has  got  a  banking  account  at  the  London  and  Pro- 
vincial Bank,  that  he  had  laid  money  out  in  deposit  at  the  London  County 
and  Westminster  Bank,  and  that  he 'had  a  savings  bank  account?  For 
what  purpose  was  he  keeping  this  £220  in  gold?  The  only  explanation  he 
has  been  able  to  give  you  is  that  the  £220  was  used  for  the  purpose  of  a 
mortgage,  and  that  it  was  there  in  case  anything  should  happen  to  him, 
so  that  the  money  should  be  taken  to  the  building  society  to  pay  off  the 
mortgage.  Naturally,  you  ask  what  difference  would  it  make  if  he  died? 
Whether  the  mortgage,  according  to  his  own  statement,  is  a  mortgage  for 
fifteen  to  twenty  years,  it  could  not  be  called  in.  He  did  not  require  the 
money  for  that  purpose.  It  is  an  invention,  as  I  submit  to  you,  to  account 
for  his  having  this  gold  in  his  possession  on  that  date  in  order  that  he  may 
explain  what  he  was  doing  on  14th  September  with  the  gold. 

Now,  see  again,  on  this  very  date,  according  to  all  the  evidence  we 
have  had  before  us,  how  does  he  deal  with  this  money?  My  learned  friend 
says  he  pays  it  into  three  or  four  places.  So  he  does,  but  you  will  observe 
that  he  distributes  it  over  as  wide  an  area  as  he  can.  If  you  have  got 

373 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

gold  which  you  do  not  want  traced  in  a  lump,  it  is  very  convenient  no 
doubt  to  use  it  in  three  or  four  different  ways.  What  happened  in  this 
case?  He  pays  in  £35  of  the  money  on  14th  September  in  addition  to 
the  money  which  he  has  to  pay  in  which  had  been  received  on  account 
of  the  insurance  company.  The  collectors'  money  is  brought  there,  and 
it  is  dealt  with  before  seven  o'clock,  on  the  evidence.  On  the  morning 
of  the  15th  he  pays  in  the  collectors'  money,  to  which,  according  to  his 
own  story,  he  has  added  £35  in  gold.  His  story  is  that  he  did  it  the  night 
before,  but  it  does  not  matter.  The  £35  is  paid  in  in  gold,  and,  as  I 
suggest  to  you,  in  the  gold  which  had  belonged  to  Miss  Barrow.  That  is 
one  way  of  dealing  with  it.  £35  goes  into  that  bank,  then  £30  goes  into 
the  Post  Office  Savings  Bank,  and  three  days  after  ninety  sovereigns  are 
used  for  the  purpose  of  paying  for  three  shares  in  the  building  society. 
Now,  is  it  not  an  extraordinary  thing  that  you  should,  so  immediately 
after  the  death  of  this  woman  who  was  known  to  be  possessed  of  a  con- 
siderable sum  of  money,  have  a  dealing  with  a  large  sum  of  gold  like  that 
in  that  way  by  this  man  who  had  a  banking  account  and  a  Post  Offce 
Savings  Bank  account  also?  If,  of  course,  he  was  not  free,  as  he  thought, 
to  deal  with  the  money,  and  he  was  afraid  of  detection,  you  would  under- 
stand why  it  is  he  was  dealing  with  it  in  that  way;  but,  if  that  was  not 
the  case,  what  a  marvellous  coincidence  it  is  that  he  should  just  on  that 
day  have  chosen  to  pay  away  all  those  sums  of  gold  when  the  body  lay 
cold  upstairs  before  it  was  taken  away  that  night  to  the  undertakers. 

We  do  not  stop  at  that,  because  on  that  very  same  day  come  two 
incidents  upon  which  I  rely  strongly.  My  submission  to  you  is  that  those 
two  incidents  are  consistent  with  guilt,  fairly,  properly,  and  carefully 
scrutinised.  The  first  is  the  incident  with  the  ring.  Now,  the  story  about 
that  is,  that  the  ring  had  been  given  to  him  by  her  as  a  present  because 
he  had  incurred  some  costs  to  the  lawyer  in  connection  with  the  assignment. 
The  evidence  upon  it  is  this,  that  the  moment  he  was  told,  as  he  was,  by 
Messrs.  Russell  &  Son  that  some  lawyer  ought  to  go  through  the  agreement 
for  her,  and  he  told  her  about  that,  she  objected  to  paying  any  lawyer's 
costs.  He  said  that  she  would  not  pay  a  single  penny,  so  he  agreed  to  pay 
those  costs,  and  they  came  to  £4  13s.,  and  he  had  given  a  cheque  for  it. 
His  explanation  of  the  ring  is — you  will  consider  whether  or  not  it  is  a 
true  explanation,  or  whether  it  is  untrue  and  invented  for  the  occasion — 
his  explanation  is  that  he  told  her  that  he  had  had  to  incur  solicitors' 
costs,  and  that  she  had  said  to  him  she  would  not  pay  any  money,  but  she 
would  give  him  a  ring  instead ;  the  substance  of  the  words  were  that  "  She 
had  not  any  money  to  spare,"  and  she  gave  him  a  ring.  On  his  own 
etory,  he  himself  had  to  pay  those  solicitors'  costs,  and  he  had  to  pay  with 
his  own  cheque,  and  the  ring  is  given  to  him. 

Now,  the  ring  is  taken  on  15th  September,  between  the  death  and  the 
burial,  by  this  man  to  the  jeweller.  What  for?  Because  it  was  too  small 
for  him  to  wear,  and  he  had  to  have  it  enlarged  so  that  he  could  wear  the 
ring,  which  this  lady  had  worn,  upon  his  finger;  therefore  the  jeweller  had 
the  commission  to  make  it  larger — he  said  that  he  wore  it  on  his  little 
finger.  It  is  a  most  remarkable  fact  which  you  ought  to  take  into  considera- 
tion that  this  point  which  I  made  against  him  in  the  opening  of  the  case 
about  the  ring  has  never  been  explained  except  upon  this  view — that  no 
374 


Closing  Speech  for  the   Crown. 

Attorney-General 

single  person  who  has  been  called,  and  who  knew  him,  has  been  able  to 
say  that  he  saw  him  wearing  that  ring  upon  his  little  finger.  It  is  a  most 
vital  point,  and,  as  you  will  remember,  I  made  use  of  it  in  opening,  as  I 
did  of  all  these  points,  so  that  my  learned  friends  should  know  the  points 
on  which  I  was  resting  my  case,  and  every  opportunity  should  be  given  them 
for  explanation.  Not  a  single  person  has  been  able  to  say  he  ever  saw 
that  man  with  that  ring  on  his  little  finger.  Even  after  he  had  it  altered 
he  did  not  wear  it.  The  ring  was  found  in  his  safe;  he  did  not  wear  it. 
What  an  extraordinary  story  it  is  that  he  puts  forward  to  you  upon  this  1 
He  asks  you  to  believe  that  the  day  after  her  death  it  occurred  to  him,  as  a 
coincidence  apparently,  that  he  should  go  to  a  jeweller's  and  ask  the  jeweller 
to  enlarge  it.  Put  to  yourself  the  other  side  of  the  story.  Suppose  this 
ring  did  not  belong  to  him  at  all,  but  had  been  amongst  the  jewellery, 
which  was  left  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant  and  the  watch  also,  and  that 
he  had  taken  possession  in  his  greed  and  coveteousness  of  that  ring  and  of 
that  watch.  Something  must  be  done  with  them,  so  that  if  there  is  any 
inquiry  hereafter,  at  any  rate  it  would  be  shown  that  the  ring  is  not  the 
one  that  Miss  Barrow  had  been  in  the  habit  of  wearing,  and  the  watch 
cannot  be  identified.  Then  you  get  that  incident  of  the  alteration  of  the 
ring  on  the  day  after  the  death,  which  I  submit  is  only  explicable,  applying 
the  ordinary  test  which  you  would  apply  to  your  own  affairs  in  this  case, 
on  the  theory  that  this  man  had  taken  the  ring,  and  that  he  wanted  to 
alter  it  so  that  nobody  would  know.  What  about  the  watch?  There,  again, 
that  matter  stands  before  you.  It  is  clearly  demonstrated  in  evidence,  and 
the  point  is  so  plain  that  I  will  only  make  this  one  observation  to  you — 
if  that  watch  had  been  honestly  obtained  by  Mrs.  Seddon,  what  reason 
was  there  that  she  should  go  hot-foot  with  her  husband  before  the  woman 
is  even  buried,  for  whom  she  confessed  to  have  had  so  much  regard,  and 
have  the  name  of  Eliza  Jane  Barrow  taken  out  of  the  back  plate  of  the 
watch,  where  nobody  in  life  could  ever  see  it,  unless  he  came  to  examine 
it  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  it?  Gentlemen,  we  do  not  open  the  back 
plates  of  the  watches  of  our  friends  to  see  whether  there  are  the  names 
there  when  you  examine  a  watch  to  see  what  kind  of  a  watch  it  is,  but  it  is 
a  most  serious  thing  if  you  want  to  identify  the  watch  that  the  name 
should  be  erased  from  it;  and  that  is  the  reason  of  the  incident  on  the  15th 
of  September  of  the  going  to  this  jeweller's  for  the  purpose  of  having  it 
rubbed  out. 

Now  I  proceed  to  the  next  material  date,  21st  September;  I  am 
passing  over  intermediate  dates.  On  that  date  there  is  the  interview 
with  the  Mrs.  Vonderahe,  and  there  is  the  remarkable  story  given  by  him 
about  the  letter  of  21st  September.  When  you  have  got  documents  to 
deal  with  it  is  a  very  difficult  thing  even  for  a  shrewd  man  like  Seddon 
to  escape  from  the  consequences  of  what  he  has  written.  It  is  easy  to 
give  explanations  when  the  only  person  who  can  contradict  them  is  dead, 
but  it  is  not  easy  when  you  are  confronted  with  a  letter,  and  in  this 
letter  of  21st  September  he  makes  an  undoubted  false  suggestion,  in  my 
submission  to  you,  with  the  purpose  and  with  the  intention  of  concealing 
really  what  had  happened,  and  trying  to  cover  up  that  he  had  had  the 
dealings  with  this  woman's  property  and  that  he  would  benefit  by  the 

375 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Attorney-General 

death,  because  he  did  not  want  any  inquiry  into  how  this  woman  had  met 
her  death. 

Just  imagine  this  for  yourselves.  Suppose  you  had  been  a  relative 
of  this  woman,  and  you  had  come  to  inquire  and  find  out  what  had  really 
happened,  and  you  saw  that  this  man,  in  whose  house  she  had  been 
lodging,  was  benefiting  so  greatly  on  his  own  showing,  when  you  got 
the  real  facts  about  her  death  you  would  want  to  know  a  little  more 
about  the  cause  of  death,  and  you  would  want  to  inquire  a  little  more 
closely  into  what  had  happened.  So  he  wants  to  put  them  off  the  scent. 
The  authorities,  the  police  or  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions  can, 
when  they  start  inquiry,  find  out  a  lot.  His  object  is  to  prevent  inquiry, 
and  he  writes  this  letter  to  the  relatives  as  executor  to  the  will — "  I 
hereby  notify" — he  has  drawn  it  up  carefully;  it  is  not  a  mere  letter 
which  he  has  sat  down  to  write,  and  which  is  done  in  great  haste  or  hurry ; 
it  is  a  letter  which  he  has  carefully  prepared  and  which  he  hands  over  to 
them  for  them  to  give  to  their  husbands,  who  would  want  to  know  some- 
thing about  what  has  happened — "  As  executor  under  the  will  of  Miss 
Barrow,  dated  llth  September,  1911,  I  hereby  certify  that  Miss  Barrow 
has  left  all  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appointed 
me  as  sole  executor  to  hold  in  trust  until  they  become  of  age."  What 
would  you  have  imagined  if  you,  a  relative,  had  seen  that  statement — 
that  all  that  there  was  had  gone  to  Ernest  and  Hilda  Grant?  I  daresay 
they  may  have  expected  that  Miss  Barrow  would  leave  it  all  to  Ernest 
and  Hilda  Grant.  "  Her  property  and  investments  she  disposed  of 
through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers."*  etc.  If  you  had  received  that 
letter  would  you  ever  have  expected  that  he  was  the  man  who  had  got 
all  her  property,  and  that  it  was  he  who  had  granted  the  annuity. 
Gentlemen,  I  will  not  labour  that.  Seddon,  in  the  box,  was  quite  unable 
to  deal  with  that  letter.  He  had  to  admit  that  it  concealed  the  facts ; 
he  had  to  admit  that  it  was  untrue ;  all  he  could  say  about  it  was  that 
it  was  unintentionally  untrue.  You  will  judge  whether  Seddon,  who  was 
carefully  preparing  a  letter  which  he  was  going  to  give  as  executor  to 
the  relatives,  wrote  something  which  was  unintentionally  untrue  when 
you  come  to  consider  the  whole  of  his  conduct. 

Then,  on  9th  October,  he  sees  Mr.  Vonderahe,  and  a  most  serious 
conversation  took  place,  because  at  that  interview,  according  to  Mr. 
Vender  ahe's  statement,  Seddon  tells  him  deliberate  untruths,  and  Seddon 
has  had  to  admit  again  in  the  witness-box  that  he  did  not  tell  the  truth 
to  Mr.  Vonderahe.  He  did  not  tell  Mr.  Vonderahe  that  it  was  he  who 
had  sold  the  annuity  and  got  all  the  property.  What  did  he  say  when 
he  is  asked,  "  Who  is  the  owner  of  the  Buck's  Head  and  the  barber's 
shop? "  he  says,  "  I  am,"  but  he  adds,  according  to  Vonderahe's 
evidence,  "  I  purchased  it  in  the  open  market."  He  has  told  you  that 
he  did  not  tell  them  that  he  had  granted  an  annuity  for  it.  One  thing 
further.  He  is  asked  then,  "  What  about  the  India  stock — who  bought 
that?  "  and  the  answer  which  he  gave  is,  "  You  will  have  to  write  to 
the  Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England  and  ask  him,  but  everything  has 
been  done  in  a  perfectly  legal  manner  through  solicitors  and  stockbrokers. 
I  have  nothing  to  do  with  it."  Gentlemen,  for  what  reason  should  Mr. 

*  See  Appendix  C. 
376 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

Seddon  tell  these  untruths  to  Mr.  Vonderahe?  For  the  simple  reason 
that  he  did  not  dare  tell  him  the  truth  in  case  Mr.  Vonderahe  wanted  an 
inquiry.  He  knew  quite  correctly  that  Mr.  Vonderahe,  as  he  had  stated, 
was  not  satisfied  and  wanted  to  know  more  about  it,  and  the  one  thing 
he  was  anxious  about  was  that  Mr.  Vonderahe  should  not  take  any 
further  trouble,  and  should  not  pursue  his  inquiry.  You  have  had  the 
story  told  by  him  about  the  legal  next  of  kin.  I  can  only  say  with 
reference  to  that  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  why  a  man  who 
is  in  a  position  of  executor  and  trustee,  as  he  was  in  this  case,  who  had 
nothing  to  conceal,  who  had  acted  honestly,  and  who  wanted  to  satisfy 
the  relatives,  and  whose  duty  it  was  to  satisfy  the  relatives,  who  was 
only  desirous  of  doing  what  an  honest  man  should  do  in  reference  to  the 
woman  who  is  dead — why  he  should  not  have  told  the  whole  of  the  story 
truthfully,  honestly,  and  straightforwardly  when  he  was  asked  questions, 
and  even  before  he  was  asked  questions,  to  the  relatives. 

That  series  of  incidents  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention  after 
the  death  of  Miss  Barrow,  as  I  suggest  to  you,  show  that  his  conduct 
after  the  death  was  inconsistent  with  innocence,  but  was  quite  consistent 
with  the  guilt  of  a  man  who,  in  consequence  of  his  crime,  was  most  anxious 
to  cover  everything  up  and  to  prevent  inquiry.  My  learned  friend  said, 
"Well,  he  called  in  a  doctor."  Do  you  imagine  that  Mr.  Seddon,  who 
apparently  was  so  fond  of  study,  and  who  has  told  us  in  his  own  words, 
"  One  thought  led  to  another,"  and  who  had  his  encyclopaedia 

Mr.  MARSHALL  HALL — He  never  said  that  he  had  an  encyclopaedia. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — I  think  he  did  distinctly  say  so,  but  my 
learned  friend  thinks  that  is  putting  it  too  high.*  I  think  he  did  most 
distinctly  say  so,  but  I  will  leave  it  out — who  had  opportunities  of  con- 
sulting books — do  you  think  Mr.  Seddon  did  not  know  if  he  did  not  have 
a  doctor  there  would  have  to  be  a  coroner's  inquest?  Gentlemen,  all 
this  parade  about  the  doctor  falls  to  the  ground  when  you  bear  that  in 
mind.  If  there  were  an  inquest  it  would  be  much  more  serious  than 
calling  in  a  doctor.  My  learned  friends  have  also,  during  the  course  of 
this  case,  commented  upon  the  conduct  of  this  woman — particularly  my 
learned  friend  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  if  he  will  permit  me  to  say  so,  in  a 
passage  of  remarkable  eloquence,  dwelt  upon  what  Mrs.  Seddon  had  done 
in  attending  to  this  woman.  Both  he  and  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Rentoul, 
with  all  the  force  which  they  addressed  you,  said,  "Oh,  but  look  at  Mrs. 
Seddon's  conduct.  Why,  she  had  put  hot  flannels  upon  Miss  Barrow, 
and  even  kissed  the  corpse!"  Gentlemen,  that  leads  me  to  make  one 
comment  upon  it,  which  otherwise  I  should  not  have  made.  All  this 
suggestion  of  her  affection  and  care  of  Miss  Barrow,  and  the  shock  to  her 
of  Miss  Barrow's  death,  falls  a  little  flat  if  you  remember  that  on  the  very 
night  of  the  woman's  death,  and  before  even  the  body  was  carried  out, 
she  goes  off  to  the  music-hall  somewhere  about  eight  o'clock  at  night, 
staying  till  twelve  o'clock.  I  am  bound  to  call  attention  to  that  when 
my  learned  friends  are  suggesting  that  she  was  so  fond  of  Miss  Barrow 
that  these  various  things  happened. 


*  He  said  ' '  There  may  have  been  something  of  the  kind  in  the  office. " — ED. 

377 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


I  have  dealt  really  now  with  all  the  material  aspects  of  this  case. 
There  is  one  other  suggestion  which,  perhaps,  I  ought  not  to  pass  unnoticed 
— that  is  the  suggestion  that  my  learned  friend  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  made, 
"  That  her  money  might  have  been  hidden  in  a  hole  which  nobody  has 
ever  yet  been  able  to  discover."  His  suggestion  was  that  this  £216, 
and  the  gold,  and  the  notes,  might  be  somewhere  in  a  hole  dug  by  Miss 
Barrow  for  the  purpose  of  hiding  it.  The  awkwardness  of  that  suggestion, 
far-fetched  as  it  is,  is  that  Ernie  Grant  has  told  us  that  he  actually  saw 
her  counting  out  something  which  she  had  taken  out  on  the  bed — gold — 
just  before  they  went  to  Southend,  and  that  was  in  the  month  of  August, 
1911.  So  it  was  there  then,  and  there  is  no  question  that  it  was  in 
existence. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  gone  through  this  story  to  you,  I  hope,  in 
all  fairness  to  these  prisoners,  and  I  have  called  your  attention  to  the 
strong  features  against  them,  and  my  learned  friends  have  quite  rightly 
called  your  attention  to  what  should  be  said  in  their  favour.  Certainly 
no  jury  could  have  been  more  attentive  to  all  the  details  of  this  case,  and 
have  been  more  watchful  than  you  have  been  during  the  many  days  that 
this  case  has  now  occupied,  and  I  do  not  think  I  should  be  serving  any 
useful  purpose  if  I  went  at  any  great  length  into  the  various  incidents 
in  connection  with  this  case.  You  see  now  how  the  matter  stands.  You 
understand,  as  you  have  done  from  the  first  when  I  opened  the  case,  that 
this  case  rests  upon  circumstantial  evidence.  It  is  right,  when  you  are 
dealing  with  circumstantial  evidence,  that  you  should  scrutinise,  examine, 
and  investigate  it  most  carefully.  It  is  utterly  wrong  to  suggest,  as 
has  been  suggested  during  the  course  of  the  speeches  in  this  case,  that 
you  should  not  convict  on  circumstantial  evidence.  If  criminals  can 
only  be  convicted  upon  direct  evidence  of  the  crime,  well,  the  result  would 
be  that  a  vast  number  of  crimes  which  are  detected,  inquired  into,  and 
punished  in  these  Courts,  never  would  be  discovered;  but  I  agree  entirely 
with  this  observation,  made  by  my  learned  friend  many  times — I  am 
not  saying  that  it  was  made  too  often ;  it  is  quite  natural  that  they  should 
dwell  upon  it  and  emphasise  it — that  you  must  be  very  slow  to  convict 
upon  circumstantial  evidence.  I  agree  entirely  with  that,  and  indeed, 
as  I  am  saying  it,  I  ana  not  at  all  certain  that  I  am  not  going  to  repeat 
almost  his  exact  words. 

If,  as  the  result  of  the  whole  of  that  evidence,  you  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  these  prisoners,  either  both  or  one  of  them,  did  commit  this 
murder,  then  it  will  be  your  duty  to  say  so  notwithstanding  that  the 
evidence  is  circumstantial.  Upon  that  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to 
dilate,  because  the  proposition  is  well  known.  We  have  been  brought 
up  to  study  the  law,  and  I  have  no  doubt  you  are  well  aware  of  it,  and 
certainly  my  lord  will  tell  you  so.  But  if  you  have  any  doubt — any 
reasonable  doubt — after  you  have  considered  all  the  circumstances  of 
this  case,  then  it  is  your  duty  to  acquit.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  you  come 
to  the  conclusion  beyond  reasonable  doubt — if  you  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  you  are  satisfied  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt — that  either  one  or 
both  of  the  prisoners  did  the  act,  you  must  not  fear  the  consequences. 
You  must  not  shrink  from  your  duty,  you  must  not  fail  to  perform  the 
obligations  you  have  undertaken  on  oath. 
378 


Closing  Speech  for  the  Crown. 

Attorney-General 

It  is  right  that  I  should  at  least  put  before  you  my  view  as  I  indicated 
to  you  when  I  began  the  address  to  you,  subject,  of  course,  to  anything 
which  my  lord  may  say,  from  whom  you  will  take  your  direction  in  law. 
The  case  that  I  put  before  you  is  that  both  these  defendants  were  engaged 
in  the  common  purpose  of  administering  the  arsenic  to  this  woman  and 
thereby  bringing  about  her  death.  If  any  acts  were  done  by  either  of 
them,  or  by  both  of  them,  in  furtherance  of  the  common  purpose,  or  by  one 
of  them  with  the  knowledge  and  acquiescence  of  the  other  that  these  acts 
are  being  done  in  furtherance  of  the  common  purpose,  both  are  guilty. 
If,  for  example,  one  brewed  the  solution  and  the  other  administered  it,  if 
those  acts  were  done  with  a  common  purpose,  both  are  guilty.  It  may 
be  when  you  come  to  take  the  whole  of  this  case  into  your  consideration 
you  may  think  that  the  evidence  shows  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  one 
of  these  prisoners  is  guilty,  but  that  you  have  some  element  of  reasonable 
doubt  with  regard  to  the  other.  Supposing  you  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  you  have  no  reasonable  doubt  with  regard  to  the  male  prisoner,  but 
that  you  have  some  doubt — you  are  not  quite  satisfied  beyond  all  reason- 
able doubt — that  the  woman  is  guilty,  then  it  would  be  your  duty  to 
acquit  her.  You  will  only  find  them  both  guilty  if  the  conviction  is 
forced  upon  your  minds  from  the  consideration  of  the  circumstances  of 
this  case  that  they  are  both  guilty.  I  agree  with  my  learned  friend  Mr. 
Marshall  Hall  that  in  these  cases  it  is  not  right  to  speak  about  "the 
benefit  of  the  doubt."  If  there  is  a  reasonable  doubt  it  means  the  Crown 
has  failed  to  prove  its  case.  If  we  have  not  established  it  to  your 
satisfaction  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  in  this  case  when  you  have  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  examination  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  the  wisdom 
you  possess,  and  which  you  would  supply  to  ordinary  human  affairs,  why, 
then,  of  course,  my  learned  friends  are  entitled  to  say,  and  I  say  with  them, 
that  both  prisoners  would  be  entitled  to  be  acquitted. 

I  am  not  going  now  to  consider  the  differences  that  may  be  mad« 
with  regard  to  the  evidence,  but  I  will  only  say  this,  that  the  evidence  of 
subsequent  conduct  to  which  I  have  adverted  during  the  course  of  my 
observations  to  you  during  the  last  half  hour,  are  mostly  matters  of 
evidence  against  the  male  prisoner,  and  not  so  much  against  the  woman, 
-but  you  must  bear  in  mind  in  seeking  to  do  justice  in  this  case  that  she  is 
present  at,  I  think,  all,  at  any  rate,  most  of  the  conversations  to  which 
I  have  referred  with  the  Vonderahes.  You  must  bear  in  mind  what  her 
position  is  with  regard  to  her  husband.  You  will  also  bear  in  mind  this. 
Our  law  is  very  merciful,  and  very  merciful  particularly  to  a  wife,  but 
not  in  a  case  of  murder.  The  presumption  which  the  law  would  other- 
wise make  is  not  made  in  favour  of  the  wife  in  a  case  of  murder.  I  mean 
by  that,  that  suppose  a  wife  is  present  when  an  act  of  larceny,  or  an 
act  of  stealing,  is  committed  by  her  husband,  the  law  presumes  that  she 
is  acting  under  the  coercion  of  her  husband,  and  the  law  presumes  there- 
fore that  she  is  innocent  of  the  crime,  but  the  law  says  also  that  there 
i«  no  possible  duty  upon  her  to  obey  her  husband  if  he  tells  her  to  do 
an  act  in  furtherance  of  murder.  According  to  the  law  of  this  country 
there  is  no  such  presumption  in  favour  of  the  wife  that  she  did  murder 
because  her  husband  coerced  her  into  it.  I  mention  those  matters  to  you 
because  they  may  have  occurred  to  you  during  the  course  of  the  hearing  of 

379 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Attorney-General 


this  case.  Those  are  the  considerations  of  law  which  should  apply,  and  I 
only  venture  to  make  them  in  the  hearing  of  my  lord,  so  that  my  lord  if  he 
differs  from  anything  I  say  would  put  to  you  what  he  thinks  is  his  view, 
and,  in  any  event,  as  I  have  no  doubt  my  lord  will  in  charging  you 
tell  you  what  the  legal  position  is  as  regards  both  the  defendants.  Now, 
gentlemen,  the  matter  will  rest,  after  the  summing  up,  entirely  with  you. 
To  you  is  entrusted  the  ultimate  duty  of  deciding  upon  the  facts  of  this 
case.  References  have  been  made  to  the  responsibility  which  devolves 
upon  those  who  are  trying  this  case,  or  taking  part  in  the  trial  of  this 
case.  Gentlemen,  of  course,  that  is  quite  true.  There  is  a  responsibility 
no  doubt  upon  my  lord,  and  a  responsibility,  of  course,  upon  us  as  counsel, 
but  the  ultimate  responsibility  rests  with  you.  You  have  to  weigh  the 
circumstances,  take  them  into  consideration,  and  determine  them  for  your- 
selves with  such  assistance  as  my  learned  friends  and  I  have  been  able  to 
give  you  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion,  subject,  of  course,  always  to  the 
main  assistance,  no  doubt,  which  you  will  get  from  the  summing  up  of 
my  lord.  It  rests  entirely  with  you.  All  I  ask  you  is,  when  you  have 
made  up  your  minds,  not  to  shrink  from  the  conclusions  to  which  you 
think  you  are  forced  by  the  evidence  that  has  been  given.  If  you  are 
satisfied,  say  so,  whatever  the  consequences.  If  you  are  not  satisfied, 
do  not  hesitate  to  acquit  either  the  one  or  both.  Give  effect  to  the 
results  of  your  deliberations  and  the  conclusions  you  come  to,  and,  if 
you  have  done  that,  you  will  have  done  your  duty,  and  justice,  I  am 
satisfied,  will  have  been  done. 


Mr.   Justice   Bucknill's  Summing   Up* 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  after  nine  days  of  an 
anxious  trial,  during  which  time  I  have  observed  that  you  have  paid  a 
most  intelligent  interest  and  taken  the  greatest  possible  care  to  under- 
stand everything  that  has  been  said,  either  by  way  of  evidence  or  by 
way  of  speeches,  we  are  now  drawing  to  the  close  of  this  painful  inquiry, 
and  my  observations  only  stand  between  you  and  your  final  deliberation. 
I  hope  you  have  not  yet  made  up  your  minds — not  that  I  am  going  to  argue 
for  or  against  the  accused  people,  far  from  it  (I  never  do  such  a  thing), 
yet  I  may  be  able  to  point  out  to  you  and  to  help  you  to  appreciate  some 
of  the  difficulties  of  the  position  ;  that  is  my  duty.  If  I  should  be  of 
assistance  to  you,  how  glad  I  should  be.  Therefore  I  hope  that  you  have 
not  yet  made  up  your  minds. 

I  also  hope  fervently  that  you  will  be  able  to  come  to  a  conclusion. 
I  am  certain  of  one  thing,  that,  whatever  judgment  you  may  pronounce  by 
your  verdict,  your  country  will  say  that  you  did  it  as  honest  and  as  in- 
telligent men.  You  must  not  be  frightened  at  the  consequences  if  you  find 
yourselves  driven  to  give  a  verdict  hostile  to  either  both  or  one  of  these 
people.  Verdicts  given  by  timidity  are  always  quite  wrong,  because  they 
are  not  verdicts  which  are  given  according  to  the  evidence.  Nor  are  you 
going  to  give  a  verdict  one  way  or  the  other  moved  by  any  feelings  of 
prejudice  or  sympathy,  although  I  know  full  well  that  you  must  have 
380 


&#&& 


YZ< 


Note  written  by  Seddon  during  the  luncheon  interval  on  the  second  day 
of  the  hearing  of  his  Appeal. 


Justice  Bucknill's   Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill. 

a  sympathetic  feeling  for  a  female  who  stands  charged  with  the  wilful 
murder  of  another  female ;  I  feel  it,  and  every  honest  man  must  feel  it. 

You  must  forgive  me  for  repeating  this,  but  what  I  am  saying  will 
stand  recorded,  and  may  be  criticised,  and  therefore  I  have  to  repeat  to 
you  what  will  not  be  recorded,  the  speeches  of  learned  counsel,  so  that  you 
may  have  it  from  me  as  if  they  had  not  said  it.  I  must  tell  you  again 
what  your  especial  duties  are  in  the  consideration  of  the  facts  which  have 
been  laid  before  you.  The  Crown  has  to  prove  its  case.  You  have  heard 
that  many  times,  for  the  reasons  I  have  given  you,  but  I  will  tell  you 
again.  The  Crown  has  to  prove  its  case,  and  the  reason  is  that  unless 
the  Crown  has  proved  to  your  satisfaction  beyond  reasonable  doubt — not 
all  possible  doubt,  but  beyond  reasonable  doubt — these  people  are  entitled 
to  your  acquittal.  I  have  had  to  consider  this  matter  very  carefully,  and 
I  shall  just  read  this  passage  to  you  so  that  I  may  be  quite  sure  that  the 
language  I  use  may  be  what  I  wish  it  to  be — "  It  is  not  necessary  that 
a  crime  should  be  established  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  for  there 
are  doubts,  more  or  less,  involved  in  every  human  transaction.  There 
are  crimes  committed  in  darkness  and  secrecy  which  can  only  be  traced  and 
brought  to  light  by  a  comparison  of  circumstances  which  press  upon  the 
mind  more  and  more  as  they  are  increased  in  number.  Your  duty  is 
calmly  and  carefully  to  investigate  the  case  and  see  what  is  the  conclusion 
impressed  upon  your  mind  as  men  of  the  world,  as  men  of  sense,  and  as 
men  of  solid  justice.  If  the  conclusion  to  which  you  are  conducted  be 
that  there  is  that  degree  of  certainty  in  the  case  that  you  would  act  upon 
it  in  your  own  grave  and  important  concerns,  that  is  the  degree  of  certainty 
that  the  law  requires."  So,  of  course,  if  you  see  a  reasonable  doubt, 
you  must,  as  you  will  be  very  glad,  not  to  give  them  the  "benefit  "  of  it, 
but  to  acquit  them.  I  do  not  like  those  words  "benefit  of  the  doubt," 
because,  where  the  Crown  has  to  prove  a  case,  if  it  has  not  proved  it, 
there  is  a  doubt ;  you  do  not  give  the  accused  person  the  "  benefit "  of  it ; 
you  simply  acquit  him,  because  the  Crown  has  not  proved  its  case. 

Now,  this  case,  as  you  may  gather  from  what  I  have  read,  is  a  case 
founded  upon  circumstantial  evidence.  The  learned  Attorney-General,  in 
his  very  careful  argument  and  very  fair  speech  just  now,  called  it  "  in- 
direct evidence."  I  disagree  a  little  about  it.  Circumstantial  evidence 
is  not  indirect  evidence,  except  that  it  is  indirect  in  this  way,  that  it  is 
not  as  direct  as  the  evidence  of  an  eye-seer — the  person  who  sees  the  thing 
done.  Circumstantial  evidence  is  made  up  of  a  series  of  circumstances 
or  facts  or  events,  each  of  which  is  direct  necessarily,  because,  if  it  were 
not,  you  would  not  perceive  it;  each  circumstance  is  direct  until  at  last 
the  sum  of  those  circumstances  may  very  rightly  and  properly  impel  you 
to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty.  Therefore  circumstantial  evidence  is  very 
often  absolutely  as  strong  as  the  most  direct  evidence  that  could  possibly 
be  adduced.  Now,  this  is  a  poison  case;  these  people  are  charged  with 
having  poisoned  Miss  Barrow.  Needless  to  say  (because  I  am  sure  you 
have  thought  it  already,  and  you  will  accept  it),  if  they,  or  either  of  them, 
are  guilty  of  this  crime,  it  was  a  crime  which  had  been  carefully  thought 
out  and  was  carefully  committed  in  secrecy.  The  history  of  those  great 
poisoning  cases  of  which  most  of  us  know,  and  which  many  of  us  have  had 
to  study,  shows  (of  course,  again  it  is  common  sense)  that  the  poisoner 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

does  not  poison  in  open  daylight,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  presence  of  other 
persons;  it  is  one  of  those  secret  crimes  which  is  done  in  the  dark.  And, 
if  this  case  is  made  out  against  these  people,  there  can -be  no  doubt  that 
it  was  a  very  abominable  crime.  That  is  sufficient  on  that  part  of  the 
case. 

Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  you,  if  you  will  allow  me,  to  bear  in  mind 
for  a  few  minutes  only  the  three  people  in  this  case — the  deceased  woman 
and  the  male  and  female  defendants.  Just  consider  for  a  moment  or  two 
the  sort  of  people  they  were.  Miss  Barrow  was  a  lady  said  to  be  forty-five 
years  old  or  thereabout,  and  a  spinster.  She  was  deaf  in  the  sense  that 
she  did  not  hear  as  other  people  did,  and  she  perhaps  had  that  same 
suspicious  nature  that  deaf  people  have  sometimes;  they  do  not  hear  what 
people  say,  and  they  naturally  get  suspicious;  one  has  experience  of  that. 
She  was  quick  to  like,  and  quick  to  dislike.  She  was  a  woman  of  good 
means;  she  had  quite  enough  to  support  herself  very  nicely  and  properly. 
She  was  very  keen  to  have  her  own  way,  I  dare  say,  in  money  matters, 
and  a  good  woman  of  business.  So  far  as  we  know,  she  was  very  fond  of 
Ernie  Grant  and  his  sister  Hilda.  Perhaps  Ernie  Grant  was  the  one 
living  person  of  whom  she  was  really  fond.  She  was  very  fond  of  the  boy. 
She  used  to  take  him  to  school  in  the  morning,  bring  him  back  to  dinner, 
take  him  back  after  dinner,  fetch  him  in  the  afternoon,  and  take  him  in 
the  evening  for  a  walk;  she  was  as  fond  as  a  mother  of  him,  and  she  was 
a  respectable  lady.  She  lived  with  the  Grants  until  Mrs.  Grant  died;  Mr. 
Grant  was  alive  when  she  went;  he  died  in  1906,  and  Mrs.  Grant  died  in 
1908.  Then  Miss  Barrow  went  and  lived  with  somebody  else  for  a  short 
time.  Then  she  went  to  the  Vonderahes,  where  she  was  several  months, 
and  there  she  took  offence  at  something  that  they  did  or  did  not  do ;  it 
may  be  they  did  not  cook  well;  there  is  some  evidence  of  that.  However, 
they  did  not  please  her,  and  she  went,  as  she  was  entitled  to.  Seeing  an 
advertisement  in  the  paper,  inserted  as  we  are  told  by  the  male  prisoner, 
she  answered  it,  and  eventually  took  the  upper  floor  of  the  house,  and  what 
she  intended  to  do,  according  to  Hook's  evidence,  was  to  live  there  with 
Ernie  and  have  the  Hooks  with  her,  and  Mrs.  Hook  was  to  teach  her 
housekeeping  and  how  to  cook,  so  it  would  be  a  little  family  on  the  top 
floor.  It  was  unfurnished;  she  took  the  furniture  with  her.  It  does  not 
very  much  matter  whether  the  furniture  was  hers  or  whether  it  was  Hook's  ; 
that  is  a  matter  which  is  of  no  importance  in  this  case  at  all.  So  she 
intended  to  live  there,  and  she  remained  there  until  her  death.  Now, 
as  regards  these  two  people,  the  husband  and  the  wife,  so  far  as  we  know, 
up  to  the  time  of  this  alleged  crime  they  were  very  respectable  people. 
He  was  a  man  of  considerable  ability,  who  had  worked  his  way  up  in  the 
insurance  company  until  he  became  a  local  superintendent  in  the  north  of 
London ;  he  possessed  the  confidence  of  his  employers ;  sums  of  money  were 
entrusted  to  his  care  every  week,  and  they  were  so  satisfied  with  him  that 
they  allowed  him  to  pay  their  money  into  his  own  bank  and  send  a  cheque 
on  to  them  for  it;  so  that  he  possessed  their  full  confidence;  nothing  in 
the  world  is  known  against  him.  But  I  think  one  must  say  this,  that, 
even  on  the  evidence  given  by  himself  and  given  by  his  wife,  he  was  fond 
of  money.  The  only  dispute  of  any  importance  that  they  appear  to  have 
had  together  arose  on  a  matter  of  money.  For  some  reason  he  was  angry 
382 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

with  her,  as  I  understand  it,  with  regard  to  some  accounts  in  the  wardrobe 
business  she  was  carrying  on  with  so  much  success,  and  he  got  into  a  passion 
apparently  (we  need  not  inquire  into  whether  it  was  rightly  or  wrongly), 
and  threatened  to  throw  the  books  into  the  fire.  He  offended  his  wife, 
and  to  the  extent  that  she  left  him;  she  would  not  have  it.  It  was  money 
that  brought  about  that  comparatively  trivial  matter.  She  came  back 
again,  and  they  lived  happily  together  so  far  as  we  know.  Now,  only  a  few 
words  about  her,  and  we  pass  on.  There  was  not  a  word  to  be  said  against 
her  so  far  as  we  know ;  we  must  certainly  assume  there  was  not.  She  was  a 
hard-working  woman,  who,  although  her  husband  was  getting  as  much 
as  £6  a  week,  did  what  many  a  woman  would  not  do,  most  of  the  work 
in  the  house.  She  cooked  and  helped  to  keep  the  house  in  order;  she  was 
not  only  a  wife,  but  a  servant ;  they  kept  one  servant,  Chater,  whose  duties, 
I  suppose,  were  comparatively  light.  So  she  is  entitled  to  be  introduced 
to  you  as  a  good  wife  and  hard-working  woman,  and  a  woman  of  good 
reputation. 

Now,  these  two  people  are  charged  with  the  murder  of  Miss  Barrow, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  it  that  if  this  crime  were  committed  by 
one  or  the  other,  or  both  of  these  people — by  the  man  if  it  were  done  by 
him,  and  if  he  only  is  responsible  there  is  the  love  of  gold  that  made 
him  do  it;  and  if  the  wife  helped  him,  acted  with  him  with  one  purpose, 
if  the  two  acted  together  with  one  purpose,  although  she  may  not  have 
done  it  for  love  of  gold,  and  only  have  done  it  to  serve  her  husband,  if  he 
compassed  the  death  of  this  woman  for  her  gold  and  the  wife  helped  him 
either,  as  the  learned  Attorney-General  has  said,  by  cooking  the  food 
into  which  the  poison  was  put  with  her  knowledge — if  that  can  be  sup- 
ported— or  by  doing  anything  else  which  would  lead  you  to  the  conclusion 
that  she  was  helping  to  bring  about  the  death  of  this  woman  by  poison, 
why,  of  course,  she  is  equally  as  guilty  as  he  is.  But  you  may  say  there 
is  a  great  difference  between  the  two.  It  is  the  case  put  forward  by  the 
Crown  that  it  was  the  cupidity  (I  think  that  was  the  very  word  used  by  the 
learned  Attorney-General)  of  the  man  that  brought  about  this  unfortunate 
woman's  death.  There  is  a  difference  between  his  cupidity  and  the  position 
of  the  wife,  as  you  may  think.  And  any  point  that  can  be  taken  in  her 
favour  you  must  take  as  also  with  regard  to  him.  Although  motive  here 
has  been  made  so  much  of,  and  although  motive,  if  it  exist,  is  such  an 
important  factor  in  this  case,  do  not  think  motive  is  proof  of  crime;  it  is 
a  matter  brought  into  the  case  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  tribunal, 
that  is  yourselves,  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that,  from  the  Crown's  point 
of  view,  this  murder  was  the  act  of  the  Seddons,  or  one  of  them,  and  that 
it  was  a  murder,  not  of  passion,  not  of  hatred,  not  done  in  a  moment  of 
heat  or  anger,  but  a  murder  which  was  designed  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
this  woman's  money,  or,  if  it  had  been  got  before  by  illegal  means,  of 
getting  her  out  of  the  way  so  that  they  should  not  be  punished  for  that 
which  they  had  done,  if  they  had  done  it. 

I  think  I  have  said  enough  on  the  general  part  of  the  case,  except  this 
one  other  observation,  and  that  is,  if  there  was  motive,  there  certainly  was 
opportunity.  Up  to  the  time  of  this  woman's  death  from  1st  September 
to  14th  September  she  was  living  in  this  house  alone,  except  for  Ernie 

383 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Justice  Bueknill 

Grant,  and  the  only  people  in  the  house  were  the  Seddons,  or  their  friends 
or  relations.     Therefore  there  was  the  opportunity. 

Now,  the  first  question  that  I  want  to  draw  your  attention  to  is  the 
first  question  you  will  ask  yourselves.  You  have  probably  asked  it  your- 
selves already,  because  you  have  been  discussing  it;  I  am  sure  you  have 
not  been  confined  all  these  days  without  having  discussed  it  more  or  less. 
What  was  the  cause  of  Miss  Barrow's  death?  The  Crown  says  that  the 
direct  and  approximate  cause  of  her  death  was  a  fatal  dose  of  arsenic 
given  to  her,  although  previous  doses  may  have  been  administered,  within 
three  days  of  the  death,  or  within  four  or  five  hours — three  days  being  the 
greatest  limit  and  four  or  five  hours  the  shortest  limit.  That  is  the 
evidence  of  Dr.  Willcox,  to  which  I  am  now  going  to  call  your  attention. 
Dr.  Willcox's  evidence  is  that  of  expressed  certainty.  You  will  remember 
he  has  told  you,  "  I  am  sure  that  she  died  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning ; 
I  have  no  doubt  about  it."  I  will  read  the  words  to  you  in  a  few  minutes. 
I  am  sure  you  will  forgive  me  if  I  take  up  some  little  time,  because  you 
know  my  address  to  you  is  not  the  address  of  counsel ;  it  is  the  address  of  a 
judge  who  is  trying  to  help  you  to  remember  some  of  the  evidence  which 
you  might  not  otherwise  have  keenly  in  your  recollection. 

I  say  it  [says  Dr.  Willcox]  because  of  the  amount  of  arsenic  that  I  found  in  the 
stomach  and  intestines  ;  from  that  amount  I  feel  satisfied  that  she  [Miss  Barrow]  must 
have  had  administered  to  her,  or  must  have  taken,  arsenic  more  than  that  amount 
which  was  found  in  the  stomach  or  intestines,  or  in  the  body,  which  altogether 
amounted  to  2'01  grains,  and  I  should  judge  she  had  had  a  strong  dose ;  the  fatal  dose 
would  not  have  been  less  than  4  to  5  grains,  and  2  grains  is  a  fatal  dose. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  know  it  has  been  said  very  often  that,  however 
high  the  authority  of  a  scientific  witness  may  be,  the  jury  are  to  be  dis- 
tinctly independent,  because  the  evidence  is  the  evidence  of  opinion  only. 
Well,  that  has  its  limitations.  In  this  particular  case  Dr.  Willcox  stands 
at  the  very  top  of  his  profession  in  regard  to  scientific  analyses.  That  is 
admitted;  I  am  not  going  to  say  anything  which  is  not  admitted;  Mr. 
Marshall  Hall  has  said  that.  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  has  also  said  of  Dr.  Willcox 
what,  of  course,  he  is  entitled  to  say  from  all  who  know  him  as  a  public  man, 
that  he  is  an  absolutely  honest,  straightforward  man,  and  he  would  not  go 
one  hair's  breadth  out  of  his  way  to  hurt  anybody.  He  has  a  reputation 
which  entitles  him  to  have  that  said  of  him,  and  I  should  think  you  would 
agree  with  that  from  the  way  he  gave  his  evidence — the  modest  and  quiet, 
but  at  the  same  time  the  clear  and  firm  manner  in  which  he  gave  his 
evidence.  He  says  that  he  is  certain,  so  far  as  he  can  be  certain  of 
anything,  so  far  as  his  scientific  researches  have  taken  him,  that  this  woman 
died  in  the  way  I  have  just  told  you.  And  yet  it  is  said  that  you  might 
say  that  it  is  possible  that  a  mistake  has  been  made. 

The  way  in  which  it  is  suggested  the  mistake  may  have  been  made  is 
this,  as  I  understand  it.  There  is  a  calculation  always  necessary.  You 
take  a  bit,  and  you  leave  a  bit,  and  you  analyse  a  bit,  and  you  argue 
from  that  that  the  bit  which  is  left,  together  with  the  bit  you  have  analysed, 
gives  a  certain  result.  You  take  the  different  organs  of  the  body;  you 
make  an  analysis  and  test  with  regard  to  each.  In  each  case  there  were 
two  tests,  the  Marsh  test  and  another.  Those  tests — the  "  mirror  tests," 
as  we  will  call  them — were  used  with  regard  to  all  the  organs  except  two, 
384 


Justice  Bucknill's   Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Buekniil 

and  with  regard  to  those  two  another  well-known  test  was  used.  As  the 
result  you  get  2'01  grains  found  in  the  body  of  the  deceased  person.  But 
the  reason  why  Dr.  Willcox  says  he  is  certain  the  fatal  dose  was  adminis- 
tered either  within  three  days  or  four  or  five  hours,  taking  each  as  the  limit, 
is  because  of  the  amount  of  arsenic  which  he  found  in  the  stomach  and 
intestines.  He  has  described  all  that  to  you.  In  the  stomach  he  found  "11 
grains  and  in  the  intestines  he  found  '63  grains,  but  the  tests  were  different, 
for  in  the  stomach  the  Marsh  test  was  applied,  and  in  the  intestines  and 
in  the  liver  another  test  was  applied.  Gentlemen,  when  you  get  a  man 
of  this  position  standing  absolutely  uncontradicted  with  another  well- 
known  doctor  who  has  not  been  called,  to  whom  an  offer  has  been  made — in 
effect,  "  come  and  test  yourself.  Here  is  what  I  have  done.  Here  is  the 
hydrogen  apparatus.  Here  are  the  parts  of  the  different  organs  of  the  body 
which  have  not  been  tested.  I  invite  you  to  test,  and  I  invite  you  to  do 
what  you  like " — is  it  not  almost  impossible  to  come  to  any  other  con- 
clusion than  that  Dr.  Willcox  is  right  as  to  the  amount  of  arsenic  found 
in  the  body?  It  is  entirely  for  you,  but  I  do  not  know  what  could  guide 
you  to  come  to  a  contrary  conclusion.  If  you  see  your  way,  of  course,  you 
will  act  on  it,  because  of  a  certainty  you  would  be  entitled  to  take  a  view 
not  in  agreement  with  Dr.  Willcox,  if  you  saw  some  reason  for  doing  it. 

One  point  has  been  made  with  regard  to  the  hair.  Dr.  Willcox  was 
extremely  fair  with  regard  to  that.  He  was  pressed,  and  the  answer 
comes  to  this,  that  if  you  find  arsenic  in  the  distal  ends  of  the  hair — the 
ends  farthest  from  the  roots — one  would  expect  that  the  arsenic  had  been 
administered  some  time  before.  I  do  not  think  he  has  given  any  exact 
time  for  that.  That  would  tend  to  show  that  that  particular  arsenic — 
some  particular  arsenic — eventually  found  its  way  into  the  distal  ends  of 
the  hair  more  than  three  days  before  the  death,  as  I  understand  it. 
Well,  that  is  a  fact,  and  there  it  is  for  what  it  is  worth.  But,  the  amount 
found  in  her  hair  has  not  been  taken  into  calculation  it  seems ;  it  has  been 
left  out!  I  cannot  give  you  further  assistance,  except  to  remind  you 
of  the  fact  that  Dr.  Willcox  was  called  back,  and  he  told  you  that  certain 
hair  had  been  soaked  in  the  fluid  from  the  body,  and  how  it  had  been 
tested  after  that,  and  it  was  found  that  the  hair  had  absorbed  a  certain 
amount  of  arsenic.  I  cannot  give  you  any  more  assistance  about  it;  it 
is  not  my  duty  to  try.  You  have  heard  counsel  on  both  sides,  and  I 
myself  am  unable  to  do  it. 

Now,  I  assume  that  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Dr.  Willcox  is 
right,  for  which  purpose  I  had  better  read  you  a  few  paragraphs  of  his 
evidence.  I  will  read  my  note.  I  have  taken  it  word  for  word  from 
the  transcript.  He  said,  "  There  might  have  been  an  amount  of,  say, 
about  5  grains — up  to  about  5  grains,  taken  within  three  hours  of  death." 
Then,  "  The  arsenic  is  conveyed  all  over  the  body  by  the  blood  stream 
rapidly."  Do  not  forget  that  extreme  rapidity.  I  offer  this  suggestion 
— probably  more  rapidly  in  one  case  than  another.  No  two  people  are 
made  exactly  the  same.  The  receptivity  of  one  is  not  the  receptivity  of 
another.  I  mean  by  that  that  the  absorption  of  arsenic  into  the  blood 
and  the  passage  into  the  different  organs  may  be  quicker  in  the  case  of 
one  person  than  another,  because  the  constitutions  are  different ;  it  is 
possible.  You  cannot,  therefore,  be  certain  on  these  matters.  You  must 
IB  385 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

make  an  allowance  for  any  difference  in  the  idiosyncrasies  of  individual 
people.  "  The  fatal  dose  was  taken  within  two  or  three  days  of  death, 
probably  within  two  days  " — but  I  am  going  to  give  you  further  evidence 
on  that.  Then  he  gives  the  reason  why  he  said  that,  "  The  relatively 
large  amount  of  arsenic  found  in  the  stomach  and  intestines  leads  me  to 
that  opinion."  You  see  my  notes  make  the  story  consecutive  by  leaving 
out  a  great  deal  which  is  unnecessary.  "  Miss  Barrow  had  certainly 
taken  arsenic  during  the  last  two  days,  and  it  is  likely  that  it  might  have 
been  taken  for  some  days  before."  Then  he  tells  you  how  he  tested 
these  different  papers,  how  he  found  papers  which  were  bought  at  Price's, 
Thorley's,  Needham's,  Dodd's,  and  Spink's,  all  seemed  to  contain  different 
amounts  of  arsenic;  the  lowest  was  3'8  grains  and  the  highest  6  grains. 
Then  he  tells  you  how  a  paper  boiled  for  five  minutes  in  a  quarter  of  a 
pint  of  water  gave  the  result  to  him,  Dr.  Willcox,  of  6'6  grains ;  that 
would  be  what  would  happen  in  that  particular  case.  Another  paper  was 
boiled,  for  the  same  time  I  suppose,  and  that  gave  3*8  grains.  Then 
we  find  this  observation,  "  2'01  grains  (which  is  the  amount  found  in  the 
body  altogether)  might  kill  a  person,  and  that  was  probably  part  of  5 
grains,  the  fatal  dose,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  Then  he  is  cross-examined 
by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall.  He  speaks  of  the  individual  idiosyncrasies  of 
people.  Then  he  says  this,  "  In  acute  arsenical  poisoning  burning  in  the 
throat  might  occur,  also  cramp."  There  is  no  evidence  that  there  was 
any  burning  of  the  throat,  or  any  cramp  in  this  particular  case.  You 
observe  he  uses  the  word  "  acute."  In  answer  to  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  he 
eays,  "  A  dose  of  four  or  five  grains  would  produce  abdominal  pains  in 
half  an  hour  probably."  Then  he  gives  the  answer  I  was  referring  to 
before,  "  The  extreme  period  that  would  elapse  between  the  fatal  dose 
and  death  was  three  days,  and  the  minimum  period  of  a  few  hours — five  or 
six  hours,  or  less."  Then  he  is  cross-examined  with  regard  to  the 
multiplying  factor,  as  we  call  it.  You  will  understand  what  the  multi- 
plying factor  is.  This  is  a  point  which  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  is  fully  entitled 
to  ask  you  to  consider  when  you  are  considering  the  exact  accuracy  with 
regard  to  the  2'01  grains  being  found  in  the  body.  The  multiplying 
factor  is  sometimes  so  high,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  says,  that  error  is  possible 
— that  error  is  probable.  Therefore,  without  charging  or  suggesting  that 
Dr.  Willcox  has  not  done  the  matter  carefully  and  skilfully  the  argument 
adduced  by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  on  behalf  of  his  client  is  this  :  skilful  as  you 
may  be,  with  all  the  science  you  can  bring  to  bear  with  regard  to  the 
accuracy  of  the  test,  you  have  got  to  make  a  calculation  which  may  make 
your  ultimate  figures  wrong.  Whether  it  would  make  them  less  or  make 
them  more  I  do  not  know,  but,  of  course,  if  error  is  possible,  that  is  the 
observation  on  it.  The  amount  found  may  have  been  less,  or  the  amount 
found  may  have  been  more,  but  using  the  best  means  that  Dr.  Willcox 
had,  the  results  were  those  which  he  has  given  us.  Then  Mr.  Marshall 
Hall  made  another  very  good  point,  if  I  may  say  so,  with  regard  to  the 
weight  of  the  body.  This  woman,  we  will  suppose,  had  a  weight,  we  will 
say,  of  about  10  stone,  but  when  the  post-mortem  took  place  it  had  reduced 
to  4  stone  and  something  pounds,  so  it  became  much  more  difficult  at 
that  time  to  tell  with  accuracy  what  was  the  correct  amount  of  muscle 
which  you  were  to  take  as  the  supposed  weight  when  you  are  calculating 
386 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bueknill 

BO  as  to  get  the  amount  of  the  arsenic  found  in  the  muscle.  Dr.  Willcox 
admitted  it  freely.  There  it  is.  You  come  to  the  same  thing  again, 
"  I  have  done  all  that  science  enables  me  to  do,  and  I  tell  you  that  that 
science  gives  me  certain  results  with  regard  to  the  muscle."  I  think  there 
was  a  grain  found  in  the  muscle,  was  there  not?  Then  comes  the  answer 
which  Dr.  Willcox  gave,  "  This  was  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning. 
I  have  no  doubt  about  it."  Then  he  is  cross-examined  about  the  hair. 
I  need  not  trouble  you  about  that;  it  is  unnecessary.  Then  he  admits 
that  the  symptoms  of  arsenical  poisoning  and  of  chronic  diarrhoea  are 
identical.  Then  Dr.  Willcox  says,  "  Miss  Barrow  may  have  had  some 
arsenic  after  Dr.  Sworn  saw  her  (I  think  Dr.  Sworn  saw  her  the  last 
time).  The  fatal  dose  may  have  been  given  within  a  few  hours  of  death." 
Then  he  repeats  that  the  arsenic  in  the  stomach,  the  intestines,  and  the 
liver  must  have  got  there  within  two  days.  Finally,  "  There  cannot  be 
the  slightest  doubt  as  to  this  being  a  case  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning." 

That  evidence  has  been  very  fairly  dealt  with  by  learned  counsel 
on  both  sides.  If  I  may  say  so,  throughout  this  case  that  has  been  the 
case.  I  do  not  know  what  your  answer  may  be  which  you  have  to  give 
to  this  question,  but  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  you  said  that  you  are 
satisfied  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  this  lady  died  of  acute  arsenical 
poisoning  as  distinguished  from  "  chronic,"  which,  from  the  Greek  word 
''time,"  means  that  she  had  been  taking  arsenic  for  a  period  of  time  as 
distinguished  from  a  few  days. 

The  next  question  is,  if  she  died  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning,  was  it 
taken  by  her  accidentally,  was  it  administered  by  some  person 
medicinally,  had  it  got  into  the  medicine  which  she  was  given, 
or  was  it  given  to  her  by  the  accused  persons,  or  by  one  of  them? 
In  consideration  of  this  part  of  the  case,  I  think  I  will  begin  with  the 
woman's  evidence.  I  will  tell  you  why.  She  saw  most  of  her  during  her 
illness.  She  was  with  her  from  day  to  day.  She  had  taken  her  to  Dr. 
Paul.  Dr.  Paul,  I  think,  saw  her  six  or  seven  days.  "  I  yesterday 
looked  up  the  last  time,  and  I  found  the  29th  was  not  the  last  day,  it 
was  the  30th  of  August."  Then,  having  got  better  under  Dr.  Paul — Dr. 
Paul  telling  you  that  there  was  nothing  the  matter  with  her  of  so  grievous 
a  natxire  as  to  have  even  kept  her  indoors  if  she  had  chosen  to  go  out — he 
is  called  in  again  on  1st  September.  Then  Dr.  Paul  said,  in  effect,  "  Too 
busy,  can't  come."  It  is  not  my  duty,  and  I  am  not  going  to  criticise 
the  duties  of  medical  men,  but  I  had  an  idea  when  you  had  a  patient 
under  your  control,  or  under  your  care,  you  ought  to  give  a  better  reason 
than  "  I  can't  come,"  if  you  are  asked  to  come  and  see  her  two  days 
after  a  visit.  I  do  not  know  what  the  profession  thinks  about  it.  This 
woman  had  been  seen  by  him  on  several  occasions ;  she  saw  him  last  on 
30th  August.  She  wants  to  see  him  on  2nd  September,  and  Dr.  Paul 
eays,  "Too  busy;  can't  come."  Dr.  Sworn  is  called  in,  he  being  the 
medical  adviser  of  the  male  prisoner.  Dr.  Sworn  conies  in  and  sees  her, 
and  there  was  nothing  that  Dr.  Sworn  saw,  according  to  his  evidence  (and 
there  is  no  dispute  about  it)  that  led  him  to  believe  that  she  was  suffer- 
ing from  anything  else  than  epidemic  diarrhoea.  He  treated  her  for  it. 
I  am  going  to  read  you  his  evidence,  because  I  think  it  is  important.  I 
will  not  read  it  all,  of  course. 

387 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

I  was  telephoned  for.  I  went  and  saw  Miss  Barrow  in  bed.  Mrs.  Seddon  was  in 
the  room.  Miss  Barrow  and  Mrs.  Seddon  gave  me  history  of  case.  That  day,  before 
she  had  diarrhoea  and  sickness,  she  appeared  to  be  very  ill.  Miss  Barrow  said  she  had 
been  ailing  on  and  off  for  a  long  time.  Mrs.  Seddon  said  she  had  had  liver  attacks  and 
asthma.  I  asked  if  she  had  been  attended  to  by  another  doctor.  They  said  she  had 
been  attended  by  another  doctor,  and  that  they  had  sent  for  him  at  noon  and  at  8  p.  m. 
Miss  Barrow  had  pains,  sickness,  and  diarrhoea,  pain  in  the  abdomen.  She  had  been 
vomiting  before,  not  whilst  I  was  there.  I  prescribed  bismuth  [and  so  forth]  and 
morphia,  both  in  the  same  mixture,  a  dose  every  four  hours.  I  saw  her  next  day,  3rd, 
in  the  morning,  11  to  12  noon,  she  was  no  better,  and  that  sickness  and  diarrha>a 
continued.  I  prescribed  some  medicine.  On  Monday  the  4th  I  saw  her  again.  About 
the  same.  I  understood  that  sickness  and  diarrhoea  had  not  ceased.  She  had  not 
yielded  to  my  treatment.  She  was  no  weaker.  I  was  not  satisfied  with  her  condition 
on  that  day.  Mrs.  Seddon  said  she  would  not  take  her  medicine. 

Now,  you  see  Mrs  Seddon  is  there  on  each  occasion  apparently 
looking  after  the  woman,  according  to  that  statement  of  Dr.  Sworn, 
and  apparently  waiting  on  her  in  a  friendly,  kind  manner,  and  was  solicitous 
about  the  health  of  the  patient.  Now  it  is  said  she  was  poisoning  her. 

That  was  before  I  went  into  the  room.  And  also  before  Miss  Barrow.  She  was 
deaf.  She  could  not  hear  what  was  said  in  an  ordinary  tone  of  voice.  That  day  I 
prescribed  an  effervescent  mixture,  potash  and  bicarbonate  of  soda  in  two  bottles.  On 
that  day  diarrhoea  was  not  so  bad,  so  I  gave  her  nothing  for  it.  I  spoke  to  Miss 
Barrow  and  said  if  she  did  not  take  her  medicine  I  should  send  her  to  a  hospital,  and 
she  said  she  would  not  go.  On  the  5th  I  went  again.  She  was  slightly  better.  Mrs. 
Seddon  was  present.  She  said  her  sickness  was  not  so  bad,  and  diarrhoea  not  so  bad  as 
yesterday.  I  did  not  alter  the  treatment.  On  the  6th  she  was  improving  and  I 
continued  same  medicine.  On  the  7th  she  was  slowly  improving,  same  medicine.  On 
the  8th  the  same  medicine.  Slowly  improving.  On  the  4th  I  stopped  morphia  because 
the  pain  was  less.  On  9th  she  was  about  the  same.  Mrs.  Seddon  said  motions  very 
offensive,  so  I  gave  Miss  Barrow  a  blue  pill.  On  10th,  Sunday,  I  did  not  call.  I  said 
on  9th  if  patient  no  worse  I  should  not  call.  On  Monday  llth  [This  is  the  day  the  will 
was  made]  I  saw  her  between  10  and  12  noon.  She  was  about  same  as  on  Saturday.  I 
saw  Mrs.  Seddon  on  llth.  Miss  Barrow  was  then  suffering  from  weakness  caused  by 
diarrhoea  and  sickness.  She  had  no  pain  on  llth.  I  ordered  Valentine's  Meat  Juice 
and  brandy  for  the  weakness. 

Do  not  forget  that  date,  because  the  Crown  suggests  that  that  is 
the  day  which  would  be  one  of  the  limitations — one  of  the  limited  periods 
— for  the  administration  of  the  fatal  dose;  they  suggest  that  the  llth, 
when  the  Valentine's  Meat  Juice  was  given,  was  the  first  opportunity  for 
mixing  this  concoction  got  from  poisonous  fly-papers,  which  we  have 
heard  would  also  be  of  a  brown  colour. 

I  told  Mrs  Seddon  to  give  her  soda  water  and  milk  if  sickness  came  on,  and  gruel, 
and  later  on  some  milk  pudding.  On  llth  her  condition  was  not  very  good.  It  was  not 
very  good  any  time  that  I  saw  her.  On  llth  a  will  was  not  mentioned  by  anyone. 

The  ATTORNEY-GENERAL — Is  not  that  the  mental  condition,  my  lord? 
Mr.   JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — What  did  I  say?     I  have  here — 

Her  mental  condition  was  not  very  good.  It  was  not  very  good  at  any  time  that 
I  saw  her.  On  llth  a  will  was  not  mentioned  by  anyone.  A  will  would  have  to  be 
explained  to  her. 

Do  not  forget  that,  because  it  is  charged  against  these  people  that  one 
of  the  suspicious  circumstances,  at  all  events  against  the  man,  is  making 
the  will  for  her  when  she  was  in  the  condition  in  which  the  doctor  describes 
her  to  be.     It  is  said  that  that  is  a  very  suspicious  matter. 
388 


Justice  Bucknill's   Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

A  will  would  have  to  be  explained  to  her.  She  would  not  grasp  all  the  facts,  but 
she  was  quite  capable  of  making  a  will  if  it  was  properly  explained  to  her. 

The  man  says  it  was  properly  explained  to  her. 

I  did  not  want  to  make  the  will  for  her,  not  being  a  lawyer.  I  did  not  know 
very  well  how  to  put  it  together.  I  knew  something  about  the  expressions  in  a  will  and 
had  a  fair  idea,  and  I  did  the  best  I  could.  I  never  expected  her  to  die,  so  I  was  not 
very  particular  about  it ;  I  did  what  she  told  me  to  do.  It  was  signed  and  witnessed. 
All  I  know  about  it  is  I  did  it  because  she  asked  me  to. 

On  the  other  hand,  you  know  what  the  learned  Attorney-General 
has  said,  and  I  shall  have  to  refer  to  the  will  again  before  I  have  finished. 

Her  mental  condition  from  1st  to  llth  did  not  improve.  It  was  about  the  same. 
I  first  ordered  Valentine's  Meat  Juice  some  time  after  the  4th  I  think.  On  12th  I  did 
not  see  her.  On  13th  I  saw  her  about  noon,  I  think  ;  not  sure.  On  13th  diarrhoea  had 
come  on  again.  She  did  not  seem  in  much  pain.  I  gave  her  a  mixture.  She  had  a 
little  return  of  the  sickness.  I  gave  her  a  chalk  mixture,  bismuth  and  chalk  ;  strength 
about  same.  She  was  weaker  on  account  of  the  diarrhoea.  I  saw  Mrs.  Seddon  on  that 
day.  I  simply  said  Miss  Barrow  was  worse,  and  that  I  would  send  her  a  mixture  to  be 
taken  after  each  motion.  I  gave  no  diet  instructions  on  that  day.  She  was  in  a  little 
danger  but  not  in  a  critical  condition.  I  did  not  expect  her  to  die  that  night  any  more 
than  any  patient  who  with  an  attack  of  that  sort  might  die  from  heart  failure  or  any- 
thing like  that.  Her  pulse  was  weaker  on  13th  than  the  day  before,  not  intermittent, 
simply  weak.  I  did  not  see  her  alive  again.  I  took  her  temperature  twice  ;  one  day  101 
on  7th  [101,  you  know,  is  not  dangerous]  some  days  it  was  99.  I  never  found  it  sub- 
normal. I  did  not  take  it  every  day.  On  13th  I  did  not  take  her  temperature. 

Then  he  tells  you  what  happened  afterwards  when  he  saw  Mr.  Seddon. 
That  is  the  evidence  of  the  doctor  during  the  time  that  he  saw  her.  I 
have  no  observation  to  make  about  it  except  to  remind  you  that  Mrs. 
Seddon  was  there  every  time.  You  may  take  that  from  two  points  of 
view,  and  you  will  not  take  the  hostile  point  of  view,  I  am  sure,  unless 
you  find  yourself  bound  to.  According  to  the  evidence  of  the  doctor,  Mrs. 
Seddon  was  there  every  day  looking  after  the  woman,  taking  his  orders, 
and,  so  far  as  we  know  (of  course,  it  is  suggested  quite  to  the  contrary), 
carrying  them  out.  At  all  events  nothing  peculiar  was  found  in  Mrs. 
Seddon's  conduct.  She  was  there  each  time  the  doctor  came ;  and  the 
doctor  gave  her  orders,  and  at  one  time  the  woman  answered  to  the  treat- 
ment positively.  Now,  the  fact  that  she  answered  to  the  treatment  and 
got  better  on  three  consecutive  days,  I  think  you  may  say  is  pretty  good 
proof  that  Mrs.  Seddon  had  carried  out  the  doctor's  instructions,  because, 
if  she  was  slowly  poisoning  this  woman,  the  probability  is  she  would  not 
have  answered  to  the  medicine.  Do  I  make  myself  clear?  On  the 
other  hand  the  suggestion  is  that  she  was  doing  one  of  the  most  wicked 
and  abominable  things  that  any  woman  in  the  world  could  do — pretending 
to  be  the  nurse  and  acting  as  the  poisoner.  So  much  with  regard  to  Dr. 
Sworn's  evidence. 

Now,  we  will  take  Mrs.  Seddon's  evidence,  if  you  please,  because  that 
follows  on  after  Dr.  Sworn'e  evidence.  I  will  only  take  her  evidence  with 
regard  to  the  illness  ;  I  shall  have  to  come  back  to  the  other  evidence  when 
I  come  to  the  motive.  On  1st  September  she  tells  you — I  need  not  go 
through  that.  She  introduced  her  to  Dr.  Paul,  and  took  her  there — 

On  the  1st  September  I  did  not  get  up  till  10-30.  She  was  in  our  kitchen  then. 
She  complained  of  being  sick.  I  advised  her  to  go  upstairs  and  lay  down.  I  helped 
her  upstairs.  She  did  not  undress.  [This  is  1st  September.]  I  gave  her  a  cup  of  tea. 

389 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Justice  Bucknlll 

She  was  sick  after  the  tea.  She  lay  down  on  the  bed  all  that  day.  I  had  seen  her  like 
it  before.  Every  month  she  would  have  sick  bilious  attacks.  On  2nd  September  she 
had  diarrhoea  and  sickness.  In  the  morning  she  said  she  could  not  sign  for  her  annuity. 
[That  was  the  day  it  was  due]  and  my  husband  went  up  to  her  and  gave  her  the  money, 
and  she  signed  the  receipt.  I  was  present.  After  dinner  I  sent  for  Ur.  Paul.  He 
attended  her  before  and  I  had  gone  with  her.  We  sent  for  him  at  once,  and  he  said  he 
could  not  come,  and  he  told  us  to  get  the  nearest  doctor  in  the  neighbourhood.  My 
daughter  telephoned  for  Dr.  Sworn,  our  own  doctor.  I  saw  him  when  he  came,  and  he 
gave  directions — everything  she  had  was  to  be  light — no  solid  food.  He  sent  her 
medicine,  chalky  and  thick,  and  she  did  not  like  it.  On  3rd  September  doctor  came 
again.  I  told  him,  and  he  said  she  must  take  it.  Afterwards  I  asked  her  if  she  would 
go  to  a  hospital  and  she  refused.  One  day  she  went  into  Ernie's  bedroom.  I 
remonstrated  with  her  and  said  the  doctor  would  blame  me.  She  complained  of  the 
flies  in  her  own  bedroom.  We  had  to  fan  her  to  keep  the  flies  from  her.  She  asked  me 
to  get  fly-papers — the  wet  ones,  not  the  sticky  ones.  That  was  on  the  Monday  or 
Tuesday,  4th  or  5th.  I  got  them  at  Meacher's  the  chemist,  just  round  the  corner,  close 
to  us.  An  old  gentleman  served  me.  I  may  have  bought  the  baby's  food  at  the  same 
time  also,  Horlick's  Malted  Milk  9/6  a  bottle.  I  believe  I  bought  for  Miss  Barrow  a 
white  precipitate  powder  to  wash  her  head,  and  once  I  saw  her  clean  her  teeth  with  it. 
I  signed  no  book  when  I  bought  the  fly-paper.  I  never  had  a  packet.  I  asked  for  two 
papers.  I  bought  four  for  3d.  I  showed  them  to  Miss  Barrow  and  she  said  they  were 
the  sort  she  wanted.  I  put  them  on  a  plate  first  to  damp  them  all  over,  and  then  in 
four  saucers,  two  on  mantelpiece,  two  on  chest  of  drawers.  I  put  water  in  the  saucers. 
When  she  was  ill  I  did  her  cooking  in  my  kitchen — only  Valentine's  Meat  Juice  upstairs 
— barley  water  &c.,  downstairs.  Before  she  was  ill  her  cooking  was  always  done  in  her 
kitchen,  except  when  I  cooked  fish  for  her  or  made  her  a  pudding.  Mary  always  made 
her  a  morning  cup  of  tea.  I  was  in  bed.  Maggie  used  to  take  it  up  to  her  before  and 
whilst  she  was  ill.  [There  is  a  dispute  about  that  between  Maggie  and  Mary.]  At  6 
I  would  get  her  a  cup  of  milk,  and  at  7  tea.  During  her  illness  I  waited  on  her,  but, 
if  1  had  to  go  out,  Maggie  would.  My  husband  only  gave  her  medicine  on  one 
occasion  when  I  complained  that  she  would  not  take  it.  That  was  the  fizzy  medicine 
which  she  would  not  take  fizzing.  Whilst  she  was  ill  she  wanted  to  see  my  husband 
about  making  a  will.  He  did  not  go  up  immediately.  He  went  up  later.  I  was 
present  when  he  went  up.  She  wanted  to  make  it  out  for  the  boy  and  the  girl.  What 
furniture  and  jewellery  there  was  for  Ernie  and  Hilda — what  belonged  to  their  father 
and  mother — she  wanted  them  to  have  it  and  not  the  Hooks.  Husband  suggested  a 
solicitor  to  her.  She  did  not  want  one — because  of  the  expense — and  asked  if  he  could 
not  do  it  himself.  Then  I  went  down  and  then  I  went  up  to  sign  it.  Husband  called 
me  and  my  father-in-law  up  and  we  saw  her  sign  it. 

So  there  was  a  time  when  the  wife  left  the  husband  with  the  deceased 
woman;*  she  went  downstairs  while  the  will  was  being  prepared  on  the 
llth,  and  she  was  called  up,  and  she  signed  it — 

The  will  was  read  over  to  her  first,  then  she  asked  for  her  glasses,  and  then  she 
read  it  and  signed  it.  Sister-in-law  arrived  that  day.  Next  day  the  doctor  came  and  1 
was  present.  [Now  we  are  coming  to  the  12th.]  On  Tuesday  the  12th  I  knocked  a 
fly-paper  off  the  mantelpiece  by  accident.  I  went  down  and  got  a  soup-plate  and  put 
the  whole  four  into  the  soup-plate  and  put  it  on  the  little  table  between  the  windows. 
I  put  fresh  water  in  the  soup-plate  as  well.  It  remained  there  until  the  morning  of  her 
death. 

You  know  what  the  learned  Attorney-General  says  with  regard  to  that. 
He  eays  all  that  story  is  not  to  be  believed — the  soup  plate  story  is  not 
true  and  the  buying  of  the  papers  is  not  true.  I  am  not  going  to  refer 
you  again  to  the  argument  of  the  learned  counsel;  I  give  you  credit  for 
remembering  that.  I  am  now  drawing  your  attention  to  the  evidence. 
You  will  give  weight  to  the  arguments  adduced  by  learned  counsel  on  one 


*  This  is  not  according  to  the  evidence. — ED. 
390 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknlll 

side  or  the  other ;  it  is  not  my  duty  to  repeat  the  arguments  to  you  again, 
but  to  read  the  evidence — 

During  her  illness  she  used  to  get  out  of  bed.  On  13th  September  Dr.  Sworn  saw 
her  in  morning.  Husband  was  not  at  home  that  evening  ;  he  was  at  the  theatre.  About 
midnight  Miss  Barrow  called  out,  ' '  I  am  dying. "  I  could  hear  her  from  the  front  where 
I  was  standing  awaiting  my  husband.  My  sister-in-law  was  with  me,  Mrs.  Longley. 
I  said  to  her  "  Did  you  hear  what  Miss  Barrow  said."  With  that  I  rushed  upstairs.  I 
also  asked  Mrs.  Longley  to  come  up  with  me.  She  did  not  like  at  first,  then  she 
followed  up  after.  I  asked  Miss  Barrow  what  was  the  matter  with  her.  She  said  she 
had  violent  pains  in  her  stomach  and  that  her  feet  felt  cold.  I  asked  my  sister-in-law 
what  should  I  do,  as  I  had  no  hot  water  bottles  in  the  house.  She  replied  "  Wrap  a 
flannel  petticoat  round  her  feet,"  which  I  did.  Then  I  did  as  I  usually  did  with  her 
stomach.  I  put  the  hot  flannels — [then  she  told  you  how  she  did  that].  Then  I  went 
down  the  stairs  again.  Husband  returned  about  half-past  12.  I  told  Mr.  Seddon  what 
had  happened.  He  did  not  go  up  immediately,  you  know ;  he  was  talking  to  my  sister- 
in-law  about  the  theatre.  I  think  in  the  meantime  the  boy  came  down.  I  think  that 
husband  and  my  sister-in-law  and  I  went  up  to  her  room  afterwards,  but  I  am  not 
certain.  My  husband  introduced  Mrs.  Longley  to  Miss  Barrow.  She  just  looked  at 
her,  and  I  think  Mrs  Longley  went  downstairs.  She  said  the  boy  had  no  right  to  be  in 
bed  with  Miss  Barrow — so  unhealthy.  My  sister-in-law  went  half  way  down  the  stairs. 
I  did  not  go  then.  I  attended  to  what  Miss  Barrow  wanted.  I  do  not  know  if 
Mr.  Seddon  gave  Miss  Barrow  a  drop  of  brandy  then  or  not,  but  he  told  her  she  must  go 
to  sleep  and  rest — that  I  would  be  knocked  up.  She  said  she  could  not  help  it.  Then 
we  went  downstairs  to  bed.  My  husband  left  the  room  first,  you  must  remember.  I 
had  to  attend  to  her  first.  We  were  not  in  bed  long  before  the  boy  came  down  again 
and  said  "Chickie"  wanted  me.  I  went  up  then.  I  put  hot  flannels  on  her,  and 
attended  to  her  as  she  wanted.  She  had  diarrhoea  then.  I  did  not  think  she  was 
dying.  I  never  saw  anyone  die.  I  went  back  to  bed  again,  and  I  had  just  got  baby  on 
my  arm  and  was  called  up  again  by  the  boy — "  Chickie  wants  you."  He  knocked  at 
our  door.  I  went  up  again  and  it  was  just  the  same  as  it  was  before.  During  that 
night  she  was  not  properly  sick,  but  nasty  froth  came  up  and  she  retched. 

You  can  understand  the  position.  I  do  not  suppose  there  was  much 
to  bring  up,  poor  soul,  after  all  the  vomiting  she  had  gone  through  and 
the  diarrhoea — 

She  had  the  diarrhoea  bad.  That  time  husband  did  not  go  up.  He  did  next  time. 
Next  time  boy  called  out  Miss  Barrow  was  out  of  bed.  My  husband  told  me  to  stop  in 
bed  and  he  would  go  up  and  attend  to  her.  I  said,  "It  is  no  good  your  going  up," 
because  I  thought  she  wanted  me  for  the  same  as  before,  but  he  would  go  up,  and  I 
followed  up  at  the  same  time.  Miss  Barrow  was  in  a  sitting  position  on  the  floor,  and 
the  boy  was  holding  her  up,  so  we  lifted  her  into  bed  again.  It  must  have  been 
between  3  and  4  a.m.  then.  I  could  not  tell  the  time.  Hot  flannels  as  before,  and 
made  her  comfortable.  She  was  not  complaining  then  to  my  knowledge,  but  generally 
she  was  always  complaining.  She  asked  me  to  stay  with  her.  Husband  said  to  her, 
"  If  Mrs.  Seddon  sits  up  with  you  all  night  she  will  be  knocked  up.  You  must 
remember  she  has  a  young  baby  and  she  [Mrs.  Seddon]  wants  her  rest."  Ernie  was  in 
and  out  of  her  bed  all  the  time.  Husband  sent  him  to  his  own  room  each  time  we  went 
up  and  down  the  stairs.  That  was  the  last  time  we  went  up — the  fourth  time.  I 
stayed  with  her  and  sat  in  the  chair — a  basket  chair — at  the  end  of  the  bed.  Husband 
was  standing  by  bedroom  door.  I  did  not  put  any  more  hot  flannels  on.  She  seemed 
to  go  to  sleep,  and  my  husband  was  standing  by  the  bedroom  door  smoking  and  reading. 
He  said,  "Why  did  not  I  go  down  and  go  to  bed."  I  said,  "What  is  the  good  of 
going  to  bed.  She  will  only  call  me  up  again,"  so  I  made  up  my  mind  to  sit  in  the 
chair.  Miss  Barrow  seemed  to  be  sleeping  and  I  was  dozing — sleeping  tired.  Miss 
Barrow  seemed  to  be  sleeping  peacefully  for  some  minutes,  and  then  after  a  while  she 
seemed  to  be  snoring.  It  was  getting  on  towards  daylight  then,  and  my  husband  drew 
my  attention  that  this  snoring  had  stopped  and  her  breathing  had  stopped.  Then  he 
lifted  her  eyelids  and  said,  "  Good  God,  she's  dead  !  "  So  with  that  he  hurried  out  and 
went  for  Dr.  Sworn.  It  would  be  between  6  and  6.30  so  far  as  I  can  reckon  it.  Whilst 
he  was  away  I  locked  the  bedroom  door  so  that  the  boy  could  not  go  in,  and  went  down 
to  the  kitchen. 

391 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

That  ends  that.  Death  had  taken  place.  Now,  I  want  to  refer  you 
for  a  moment  to  the  boy's  evidence.  We  will  see  what  the  boy  says  about 
that  night.  He  describes  how  he  lived  with  the  Seddons,  how  Miss  Barrow 
was  taken  ill,  and  how  he  slept  in  his  own  bed,  first  of  all,  and  when  she 
got  worse  she  asked  him  to  sleep  in  her  bed,  and  he  did — • 

I  remember  the  last  night  I  slept  with  her.  She  kept  waking  up  and  it  awoke  me. 
I  went  downstairs  to  call  Mrs  Seddon.  Miss  Barrow  asked  me  to.  They  slept  on  the 
floor  below.  Mrs.  Seddon  came  upstairs,  and  so  did  Mr.  Seddon,  and  I  got  into  bed 
again  with  Miss  Barrow.  Mr.  Seddon  wanted  me  to  go  to  my  own  bed  in  the  small 
room  to  get  some  sleep.  Then  Miss  Barrow  called  me  again  and  I  went.  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Seddon  were  there  then.  I  had  left  them  in  the  room  and  found  them  there  when  I 
returned.  Miss  Barrow  called  me  back  directly.  I  got  into  her  bed.  Mr  Seddon  told 
me  to  go  back  to  my  room  and  I  went  and  remained  there. 

Mr.  Seddon  told  him  to  go  back  and  so  forth,  and  you  will  remember 
how  he  went  backwards  and  forwards.  At  all  events,  the  point  of  his 
evidence  is  that  he  saw  these  two  people  up  there,  and  apparently  he  saw 
this  woman  put  flannels  on,  apparently  doing  her  best  to  make  the  poor 
creature  comfortable. 

Now,  Mrs.  Seddon  is  cross-examined,  and  you  will  remember  the  cross- 
examination  on  this  part  of  the  case;  I  do  not  want  to  give  you  the 
evidence  about  the  cash  box  or  anything  of  that  sort  yet — 

On  2nd  September  Miss  Barrow  was  in  bed.  Once  a  month  she  had  had  bilious 
sick  headaches.  From  2nd  to  13th  September  I  was  in  constant  attendance  on  her.  I 
had  got  up  in  the  middle  of  the  night  once  or  twice.  Ernie  slept  with  her  all  the  time. 
He  used  to  call  me.  On  Sunday  she  wanted  to  know  if  she  could  have  a  will  made  out 
for  furniture  and  jewellery  for  Ernie  and  Hilda.  I  said  I  could  not  give  her  any 
information  but  would  speak  to  my  husband,  so  I  did.  He  said  he  could  not  be 
bothered  just  then  as  he  was  busy.  I  do  not  think  he  went  up  at  all  on  Sunday,  but  he 
did  on  Monday,  and  I  heard  it  read.  I  know  nothing  more  about  it.  [Then  she  is 
cross-examined  about  13th  September.]  Doctor  had  been  in  the  morning.  She  seemed 
rather  weaker — pains  and  diarrhoea.  When  doctor  left  I  did  not  think  there  was  any 
fear  of  death.  I  did  not  notice  that  she  got  worse.  I  was  not  with  her  all  day.  I  saw 
her  at  10  p.m.  and  gave  her  a  dose  of  medicine.  My  husband  had  gone  to  the  theatre. 
I  was  at  home.  I  had  been  putting  hot  flannels  on  her  before  husband  returned.  She 
wanted  me  to  fan  her  all  the  time  but  I  could  not  do  that.  Up  to  midnight  she  did  not 
appear  to  be  any  worse.  In  the  morning  Dr.  Sworn  had  left  her  about  the  same  as  the 
day  before.  If  he  said  she  was  worse  I  don't  remember  it.  I  was  not  alarmed.  She 
had  been  worse  than  she  was  on  the  13th.  He  said  she  was  in  a  weak  condition. 
During  the  day  she  had  pains  and  diarrhrea.  Diarrhoea  did  not  get  worse,  not  that  I 
know  of.  Before  husband  returned  she  had  not  said  to  me  "  I  am  dying" — [She  had 
only  heard  her  saying  it  from  downstairs] — When  at  the  front  door  I  heard  her  say 
"  Come  quick  !  I  am  dying!"  She  was  the  same,  bad  pains  and  wanted  to  be  sick. 
She  was  always  calling  on  us  and  sometimes  we  did  not  answer.  I  do  not  know  if  I 
smiled  when  I  told  husband  she  had  said  she  was  dying.  I  have  a  habit  of  smiling. 

Let  us  stop  there  for  a  moment.  You  saw  the  woman.  Some 
people  have  that  manner  of  smiling.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  suggested, 
I  suppose,  that  it  is  not  natural,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  woman  says 
herself  that  it  was  her  habit.  You  noticed  yourselves  that  the  more 
difficult  the  question  she  had  to  answer,  and  the  more  necessary  it  was  that 
she  should  be  careful,  the  more  she  smiled.  If  so,  it  is  a  trick,  and 
if  it  is  a  trick  there  is  nothing  in  it — 

He  asked  if  she  was  dying,  I  said,  "  No,"  and  smiled.  I  meant  him  to  understand 
that  she  was  not  dying.  I  waited  hand  and  foot  on  her  and  did  all  I  could  to  get  her 
better.  A  few  minutes  after  husband  returned  from  theatre  he  went  up  to  her  room. 
Two  or  three  doctors  live  at  bottom  end  of  Tollington  Park.  I  went  up  four  times  that 

392 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

night  from  husband's  return.     She  was  worse  that  night  than  she  had  been  before. 
[Now  comes  the  brandy.] 

I  saw  my  husband  give  her  brandy,  and  he  said  it  would  have  to  last  her  the 
night,  and  he  gave  her  some  and  left  some,  and  it  had  gone  in  the  morning.  She  must 
have  drunk  it  when  she  was  out  of  bed.  Ernie  was  sent  away  to  his  bed  the  last  time 
between  3  and  4  just  when  she  went  off  to  sleep.  I  did  say  before  the  Coroner  that  the 
boy  did  not  sleep  in  the  bed  after  2  o'clock,  but  that  must  be  a  mistake  because  2  o'clock 
was  the  first  time  my  husband  told  him  to  go  to  bed,  not  the  last.  The  last  time  he 
was  there  was  between  3  and  4  in  the  morning. 

That  is  practically  the  cross-examination  on  that  part  of  the  case. 
Now,  it  may  be  put  in  two  ways,  and  you  must  consider  the  two  ways. 
If  this  woman  was  right,  and  she  thought  there  was  no  danger  of  her 
dying,  and  she  was  no  worse  than  she  was  when  the  doctor  left  her  in 
the  morning,  you  may  think  there  was  nothing  wrong  in  not  sending  for 
the  doctor,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  woman  was  worse,  had 
called  out  she  was  dying,  had  said  she  was  dying,  and  was  found  sitting 
on  the  floor  in  that  position  in  an  agony  of  pain  with  the  boy  holding  her 
up — in  an  agony  of  pain  as  she  doubtless  was,  exhausted  and  very  ill,  in 
the  middle  of  the  night — with  doctors  close  to,  you  may  think  it  is  a  strange 
thing  that  a  doctor  was  not  sent  for.  But  on  the  other  hand  there  are 
two  ways  of  looking  at  it.  If  it  was  anticipated  that  Dr.  Sworn  would 
come  next  morning,  and  it  was  then  already  between  2  and  3  in  the 
morning,  you  may  think  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  in  not  sending  for 
Dr.  Sworn.  There  it  is.  Look  at  it  from  both  points  of  view.  Make 
a  fair  consideration  of  it  from  all  the  views  of  the  facts.  That  is  with 
regard  to  that. 

Is  this  story  with  regard  to  the  fly-papers  and  her  buying  them  a 
falsehood  for  the  purpose  of  misleading  you?  Is  it  a  point  got  up  at  the 
last  moment  really — for  the  purpose  of  making  a  defence  either  for  the 
husband  or  a  defence  of  her  own  conduct?  Against  that  you  have  seen 
the  wife  in  the  box.  You  twelve  men  ought  to  be  able  to  say  if  ehe 
is  lying  or  not.  That  is  why  you  are  there.  You  are  the  constitutional 
tribunal  to  judge,  amongst  other  things,  of  the  manner  in  which  witnesses 
give  their  evidence.  You  are  much  better  than  a  single  judge  or  any 
other  tribunal ;  you  are  a  constitutional  tribunal  for  the  purpose  of  seeing 
whether  the  witnesses  are  lying  or  whether  they  are  speaking  the  truth. 
You  have  seen  the  woman.  Do  you  think  she  is  lying?  Well,  if  she  was 
lying  she  was  lying  very  cleverly.  If  you  think  she  was  telling  the 
truth  with  regard  to  what  took  place  on  the  night  of  the  13th  to  the  14th, 
and  with  regard  to  the  last  illness,  I  should  not  be  astonished  if  you  found 
her  not  guilty. 

Then  it  is  said  there  is  a  motive.  Before  coming  to  the  evidence  of 
the  motive  I  want  to  deal  with  the  woman's  case  first.  What  is  a 
motive?  There  is  always  a  motive.  Now,  what  is  a  motive?  I  do 
not  know  that  I  can  define  "  motive  "  offhand,  but  a  motive,  I  suppose 
from  the  very  derivation  of  the  word,  is  a  condition  of  things,  it  may  be 
a  mental  condition  of  things,  which  impels,  or  incites,  or  tends  to  impel, 
or  tends  to  incite,  a  person  to  do,  or  refrain  from  doing,  something, 
whether  that  something  is  good  or  is  bad.  There  are  motives  of  charity, 
kindness,  brotherly  love,  and  that  sort  of  thing,  and  there  are,  of  course, 
on  the  other  hand,  motives  of  selfishness,  greed,  passion,  and  anger,  each 

393 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Justice  Bueknill 

man  or  woman  being  impelled  to  do,  or  refrain  from  doing,  something 
that  he  or  she  ought  to  do.  A  person  from  an  evil  motive  may  stand 
by  and  see  another  person,  drowning  and  not  help  him  because  he  hates 
him ;  he  is  impelled  to  stand  still.  Another  man  may  be  impelled  to  kill 
a  person  if  he  has  a  chance.  Another  person,  if  he  has  a  strong  motive 
(and  in  this  case  it  is  suggested  the  motive  is  love  of  money,  greed, 
cupidity)  may  destroy  the  person  who  has  the  money,  or  who  has  been 
robbed,  either  to  put  an  end  to  a  monetary  liability  or  to  shut  the  door 
upon  detection  if  there  had  been  robbery. 

Now,  that  is  all  very  well  with  regard  to  a  great  part  of  this  case ; 
nobody  can  deny  that  if  the  man  Seddon  is  a  wicked  man,  loving  gold  better 
than  anything  else  in  the  world,  there  was  a  motive — a  possible  motive — 
in  wishing  to  cease  to  have  to  pay  the  annuity.  But  that  was  not  the 
wife's.  What  did  it  matter  to  her  whether  he  paid  this  £124  or  £150; 
I  forget  for  the  moment  the  exact  amount.  What  did  it  matter  to  the 
wife  whether  he  paid  this  £10  a  month,  £4  and  £6  re  the  public-house 
and  barber's  shop,  and  the  India  3£  per  cent,  stock,  or  not?  He  had 
got  plenty  of  money  apart  from  that.  He  kept  her  in  comfort.  It  is 
rather  hard  to  say  what  her  motive  would  be.  He  had  a  motive  to 
kill  this  woman,  because  he  had  a  motive  to  put  an  end  to  the  annuity, 
and  the  direct  motive  that  she  is  said  to  have  arises  from  these,  it  must 
be  admitted,  rather  strange  and  mysterious  transactions  with  regard  to  the 
changing  of  these  notes. 

It  stands  in  this  way;  it  is  said  that  when  Miss  Barrow  went  to  live 
with  these  people  she  had  a  cash  box.  I  will  refer  to  the  evidence  shortly. 
The  cash  box  which  has  been  produced,  and  is  in  Court  now,  is  one  in 
which  she  had  notes  and  in  which  she  had  gold.  Never  mind  how  many 
notes,  and  never  mind  how  much  gold ;  but  she  was  a  person  who,  when 
she  went  to  live  with  the  Seddons,  had  this  cash  box  with  the  gold  and 
notes  in  it.  Now,  Miss  Barrow  had  in  her  possession  certain  notes  which 
were  the  cashment  of  certain  cheques  which  she  received  from  the  brewers 
for  rent  of  the  public-house  for  a  period  extending  from  October,  1901,  to 
the  time  when  they  paid  the  last  amount.  These  cheques  were  cer- 
tainly cashed  and  ultimately  paid  into  a  bank  and  notes  were  given. 
Those  notes  passed  into  Miss  Barrow's  possession  clearly.  Equally  clearly 
Miss  Barrow  gave*  some  of  those  notes,  twenty-six  or  twenty-seven  of  them, 
to  Mrs.  Seddon  to  cash  (that  is  not  denied),  and  these  notes  were  cashed 
by  Mrs.  Seddon,  some  in  her  own  name  and  some  in  the  name  of  "  M. 
Scott,"  the  address  being  given  either  "12  Evershot  Road  "  or  "18  Ever- 
shot  Road."  Of  course,  it  is  a  matter  of  suspicion  that  Mrs.  Seddon  did 
what  she  did  in  giving  a  false  name,  but  she  explained  it,  and  if  you 
believe  the  explanation  there  is  an  end  of  it.  What  she  said  was  this — 

When  I  went  to  a  shop  where  I  was  known  I  gave  my  own  name  ;  when  I  went  to 
a  shop  where  I  was  not  known  I  did  not  give  my  own  name  ;  I  did  not  care  to  and  I 
gave  a  false  name  ;  I  gave  the  name  "  M.  Scott "  and  I  intended  to  give  the  address  in 
each  case  "  12  Evershot  Road"  when  I  gave  the  name  of  "  M.  Scott." 

Of  course,  the  suggestion  made  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  is,  "You  did 
it  because  you  did  not  want  these  notes  traced."  She  said,  "  No,  that  is 

*  There  was  no  evidence  of  how  the  notes  came  into  Mrs.  Seddon's  possession. — ED. 
394 


Justice  Bucknill's   Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

not  the  reason  I  did  it" — for  the  reasons  that  I  have  given  you.  When 
asked  what  she  did  with  the  money  she  said,  "  I  paid  it  to  Miss  Barrow." 

Then  the  next  peculiarity  about  the  case  is  this,  Miss  Barrow,  to 
Mrs.  Seddon's  own  knowledge,  had  taken  her  money  out  of  the  savings  bank 
on  19th  June,  1911;  forgive  me  if  I  do  not  remember  exact  dates,  as  I 
am  speaking  from  memory.  Mrs.  Seddon  saw  her  paid  in  gold,  and 
therefore  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  Miss  Barrow  had  that 
amount  of  gold  in  her  cash  box.  What  was  the  reason  for  Mrs.  Seddon 
continuing  to  cash  notes — I  will  call  them  the  "  brewers'  "  notes — after 
June?  It  was  put  this  way  by  the  Crown — Miss  Barrow  did  not  want  the 
notes  cashed,  because  she  had  got  gold  in  her  cash  box ;  the  story  is  untrue ; 
she  had  been  robbed  of  these  notes;  but  whether  she  was  robbed  of  them 
or  whether  she  was  not,  Mrs.  Seddon's  or  Mr.  Seddon's  possession  of  these 
notes  (for  he  had  possession  of  them  as  well)  was  illegal  possession,  and  the 
transaction  was  altogether  wrong,  and  would  not  stand  the  light  of  day; 
there  was  a  fear  of  detection  by  Miss  Barrow,  and  because  there  was  a 
fear  of  detection  by  Miss  Barrow  there  was  the  motive  to  kill.  That  is 
the  way  it  is  put  most  strongly  against  Mrs.  Seddon.  Mr.  Seddon  says, 
"  I  did  not  know  that  Mrs.  Seddon  had  -done  this  until  after  she  was 
arrested."  Answer — "  I  do  not  believe  it;  the  etory  will  not  hold  water;  it 
is  too  suspicious,  and  you  will  not  believe  it."  On  the  other  hand,  as  I 
have  said  before,  you  have  seen  the  woman,  and  you  have  heard  her  story 
given  in  her  own  words.  If  you  believe  her  she  ought  to  be  acquitted, 
and,  of  course,  if  you  disbelieve  her  the  position  then  remains,  has  the 
Crown  proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  she  is  guilty? 

With  regard  to  what  happened  after  the  death,  of  course,  the  motive 
ceases.  If  there  was  a  robbery  of  the  box  after  death,  that,  of  course, 
could  not  be  the  motive  for  the  death;  death  had  already  taken  place.  If 
I  were  you,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  suggest  it,  I  should  ask  yourselves,  first 
of  all,  do  you  find  yourselves  impelled  as  reasonable  and  honest  men,  apart 
from  sympathy  altogether — you  must  have  no  sympathy  for  her  because 
she  is  a  woman;  your  judgment  must  be  that  of  cold-blooded  men  for  the 
moment — are  you  satisfied  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  she  is  guilty? 
Are  you  satisfied  that  the  Crown  has  made  it  out,  that  is  to  say,  that  she 
co-operated  with,  assisted,  and  actively  helped  her  husband  to  kill  this 
woman  by  poison  administered  within  the  limits  which  it  is  alleged  that 
poison  was  administered?  Her  case,  I  think  I  may  say,  without  a  doubt, 
is  not  on  altogether  parallel  lines  with  his.  I  will  say  nothing  more  with 
regard  to  Mrs.  Seddon,  because,  indeed,  I  do  not  think  I  have  anything 
more  to  say  about  it.  It  is  not  necessary  to  read  you  all  about  the  notes 
and  the  cross-examination  upon  it.  I  do  not  suppose  you  want  me  to  read 
you  all  about  the  notes. 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — No,   my  lord. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — The  learned  Attorney-General  in  cross- 
examining  her,  very  fairly,  if  I  may  say  so,  put  the  questions  in  this  way, 
and  I  wish  to  thank  him  for  it — "  Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  you  a  question. 
The  object  of  that  question  is,"  so  and  so,  "so  there  can  be  no  catch  in 
it."  It  was  very  gratifying  indeed  to  the  Court  that  the  Attorney-General 
should  tell  the  witness,  as  he  went  from  step  to  step,  what  the  point  was, 

395 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Justice  Bueknill 

BO  that  they  could  not  possibly  misunderstand  what  the  questions  were 
being  put  for. 

As  I  went  through  Mrs.  Seddon's  evidence,  so  I  must  go  through  Mr. 
Seddon's  evidence  with  regard  to  the  last  week,  or  the  last  night  at  all 
events  after  the  death.  You  know,  they  do  not  stand  at  all  in  the  same 
way,  because  Mr.  Seddon  was  very  much  more  active  in  what  might  be 
called  "  suspicious  conduct"  than  she  was.  He  begins  by  telling  you  about 
Dr.  Paul,  and  how  she  went  to  see  him,  and  then  he  says  this — 

On  1st  September  my  wife  told  me  Miss  Barrow  had  a  bilious  attack.  The 
annuity  was  due  on  September  1st  and  I  paid  it  on  the  2nd  as  she  was  unwell  on  the  1st. 
I  very  rarely  visited  her  room.  She  said  Hhe  thought  she  could  sign  for  her  annuity. 
I  paid  her  £10,  as  I  always  did,  although  the  receipt  says  only  £6.  [You  understand 
that.]  That  was  generally  paid  about  noon.  1  probably  drew  it  from  the  Bank  the  day 
before.  I  always  paid  her  in  gold,  and  she  signed  both  receipts.  I  cannot  say  if  she  got 
better  or  worse.  I  went  up  on  one  occasion  [September  4th]  to  remonstrate  with  her  for 
leaving  her  room  and  going  into  the  back  room,  the  boy's  room.  [He  goes  up  apparently 
alone.]  My  wife  was  upset  about  it  and  told  me.  2nd  September,  Maggie  was  sent  for 
Dr.  Paul.  He  did  not  come,  so  I  said  "Send  for  Dr.  Sworn,"  although  Dr.  1'aul  was 
much  nearer,  and  Dr.  Sworn  called.  On  Sunday  the  3rd  and  Monday  4th  when  I  went 
to  her  room  there  were  many  flies,  and  wife  said  the  reason  for  going  into  the  other  room 
was  on  account  of  the  heat  and  the  flies.  My  wife  told  me  she  had  got  fly-papers. 
From  first  to  last  I  never  handled  a  fly-paper.  [I  am  not  on  this  particular  point,  but  I 
am  mentioning  it  because  I  am  going  through  this  particular  time.]  I  never  heard  of 
Mather's  fly-papers  before  the  Police  Court.  On  Sunday,  10th,  Dr.  Sworn  did  not  call. 
On  Monday,  11  th,  wife  told  me  Miss  Barrow  was  worrying  about  her  jewellery  and 
furniture,  and  wanted  to  see  me.  I  went  to  her  and  she  said  she  did  not  feel  well  and 
she  would  like,  if  anything,  at  any  rate  to  be  sure  that  Ernest  and  Hilda  got  what 
belonged  to  their  father  and  mother.  [Then  he  speaks  about  the  will ;  I  am  not  upon 
that.  She  makes  the  will.  Then  we  come  to  this.] 

When  my  wife  told  me  Miss  Barrow  wanted  to  make  a  will  she  said  she  had  given 
her  an  effervescent  mixture  and  that  Miss  Barrow  would  not  take  it  fizzing,  and  asked 
me  to  speak  to  her,  so  I  said  to  Miss  Barrow,  "  Aren't  you  aware  that  your  medicine  is 
no  good  to  you  without  you  drink  it  effervescing."  I  said  to  wife  "  Give  me  a  dose  and 
let  us  see  if  I  can  get  her  to  take  it  so."  I  did  not  know  how  it  was  mixed.  Wife  gave 
me  two  glasses.  [Then  he  described  how  he  did  it ;  he  took  a  dose  himself,  and  then  he 
gave  it  to  her.]  She  did  not  drink  it  fizzing.  I  said  "  That  is  not  a  bit  of  good,"  and  told 
wife  to  tell  doctor,  and  I  said  "  She  ought  to  go  to  the  hospital."  The  last  night  I  gave 
her  a  drop  of  brandy.  I  had  gone  upstairs.  Day  before  will  was  executed  Mr.  Longley 
had  asked  if  his  wife  and  girl  might  come  up,  and  I  said  'Yes,'  and  they  arrived  the  day 
the  will  was  made.  We  gave  up  our  best  bedroom.  [Then  he  talks  about  the  boy. 
Then  he  says  this.] 

On  13th  September  at  9.30  a.m.  the  Longleys,  father,  Frederick  and  Ada  Seddon, 
spent  the  day  at  the  White  City.  I  was  not  very  well  that  day.  I  believe  I  was  in 
bed  when  the  doctor  called.  I  went  out  in  the  afternoon  about  2,  and  returned  to  tea 
6  to  7.  Hurried  tea  and  then  I  went  to  the  theatre  7.30  to  8.  I  had  a  dispute  about 
a  2/-  piece  or  half  a  crown.  I  came  in  about  12.30  at  night.  I  cannot  say  whether  it 
was  hot.  My  wife  told  me  Miss  Barrow  had  called  out  she  was  dying.  I  said,  "Is 
ehe?"  She  said,  "No,"  and  smiled.  I  did  not  go  upstairs  for  half  an  hour.  It  was 
1  o'clock.  Dr.  Sworn  is  half  an  hour's  walk  distant.  I  can  do  it  in  a  quarter.  I  had 
been  in  the  house  half  an  hour  when  Ernie  called  out  from  upstairs,  "  Chickie  wants 
you."  Wife  said,  "  She  has  been  calling  like  that,"  and  she  had  done  all  she  could  for 
her,  and  had  put  hot  flannels  on  her,  and  had  been  up  several  nights  with  her  till  early 
hours.  Not  unusual  for  Ernie  to  call  out  in  the  early  hours  of  the  morning.  Wife  was 
resting  on  couch.  I  said,  "Never  mind,  I  will  go."  I  asked  my  sister  to  go  up  with 
me.  We  both  went  up  together,  and  my  wife  followed  immediately.  \Ve  three  went 
there  together.  1  said,  "  Now,  Miss  Barrow,  this  is  my  sister  from  Wolverhampton. 
You  know  Mrs.  Seddon  is  tired  out,  and  I  would  like  you  to  try  and  let  her  have  a 
little  sleep.  It  would  do  you  more  good  to  rest."  She  said,  "Oh,  but  I  have  had  such 
pain."  I  said,  "  Mrs.  Seddon  says  she  has  given  you  flannels  and  done  all  she  can  for 
you."  Miss  Barrow  did  not  take  much  notice  of  my  sister  so  she  left  the  room.  Miss 

396 


Justice  BucknilPs   Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

Barrow  asked  for  more  hot  flannels  and  asked  for  a  drop  of  brandy.  I  said,  "My  dear 
woman,  don't  you  know  that  it  is  after  1  a.m.  and  we  cannot  get  brandy  now?  "  Wife 
said,  "There  is  a  drop  there  in  the  bottle."  I  said,  "Give  her  a  drop  then."  Wife 
passed  me  the  bottle,  and  I  gave  her  a  drop.  There  was  very  little  in  it.  I  gave  her 
half  what  there  was,  and  left  the  rest.  I  put  a  drop  of  soda  in  it  from  a  syphon.  I  had 
no  idea  she  was  dangerously  ill.  She  had  been  the  same  the  other  nights  that  week. 
I  left  wife  preparing  hot  flannels.  I  was  in  the  room  only  four  or  five  minutes.  My 
sister  had  only  just  gone  downstairs  and  waited  for  me.  I  went  to  bed  2  to  2.30  a.m. 
A  shocking  smell  in  the  room.  I  had  a  delicate  stomach.  I  said  if  we  did  not  let  boy 
be  in  her  room  we  should  get  no  rest  at  all.  In  a  few  minutes  boy  called  Mrs.  Seddon 
again,  and  she  went.  That  was  twice  in  half  an  hour.  She  went  up  twice  alone.  The 
third  time  [  went  up  with  her.  Then  I  spoke  to  her  to  see  if  1  could  get  her  to  try  to 
sleep,  and  I  said  we  should  have  to  get  a  nurse,  or  she  would  have  to  go  to  the  hospital. 
Wife  said  she  would  stay  with  her,  and  I  sent  boy  to  his  bed.  Miss  Barrow  called  for 
Ernie  and  he  went  to  her,  and  then  I  sent  him  to  his  own  bed  again.  Mrs.  Seddon  got 
hot  water  from  Miss  Barrow's  kitchen  for  flannels.  Then  she  recalled  him,  and  wife 
and  I  went  down  again.  In  a  quarter  of  an  hour  boy  called  us  and  we  went  up  again. 
She  was  on  the  floor  and  the  boy  was  supporting  her.  We  lifted  her  into  bed.  Boy 
was  much  upset.  Miss  Barrow  lay  quiet  and  did  not  speak  when  I  asked  her  why  she 
was  out  of  bed.  She  gave  no  explanation.  Wife  agreed  to  stay  with  her,  and  I  told 
boy  to  go  to  his  room.  About  4  a.m.  then,  I  did  not  go  to  bed.  I  stood  at  door 
smoking.  Miss  Barrow  seemed  to  be  sleeping.  We  decided  to  send  Miss  Barrow  to 
the  hospital  next  morning.  For  about  an  hour  and  a  half  she  breathed  heavily  through 
her  mouth,  like  that  [and  he  described  it].  I  read  a  paper  and  smoked,  wife  dozed  in 
a  chair.  I  went  down  to  see  our  baby.  All  of  a  sudden  snoring  stopped,  and  I  said, 
"Good  God,  she  has  stopped  breathing  !"  She  died  6.20  by  her  clock.  I  was  in  a 
terrible  state,  and  hurried  off  for  the  doctor. 

There  is  one  point  which  one  cannot  help  mentioning,  and  which  is 
one  which  everybody  must  think  is  important — why  on  earth  did  he  not 
send  for  the  doctor  when  he  saw  her  upstairs  sitting  in  an  agony  of  pain? 
Do  not  be  too  prejudiced  against  a  man  like  that.  He  may  be  a  man  of 
cold  feelings,  and  a  man  of  a  hard  heart,  but  it  does  not  make  him  out 
to  be  a  murderer.  It  certainly  is  an  extraordinary  thing,  as  I  think;  it 
is  not  for  me  to  say.  Why  on  earth  did  not  he  send  for  a  doctor?  Do  not 
be  prejudiced  too  much.  It  is  not  because  he  did  not  send  for  a  doctor 
that  he  murdered  the  woman,  but  it  is  a  fact  to  be  taken  into  your 
consideration.  Do  not  make  too  much  of  it,  but  do  not  forget  it.* 

Then,  that  is  what  happens  on  that  night.  He  was  cross-examined, 
of  course,  on  that.  He  was  asked  about  the  will.  I  need  not  worry  you 
about  that.  I  do  not  think  he  is  asked  many  questions  about  the  night 
itself.  He  is  asked  about  what  he  did  immediately  after,  and  he  was  asked 
why  he  did  not  send  for  a  doctor,  and  so  forth. 

Now,  the  case  against  him  is  this,  that  either  within  a  few  hours 
before  she  died,  that  is  to  say,  after  he  returned  from  the  theatre,  or 
before  that,  but  within  three  days  of  the  death,  he  administered  arsenic. 
It  is  suggested  that  he  had  the  opportunity  of  putting  it  into  the  brandy, 
although  I  think  the  evidence  only  goes  to  show  his  having  given  brandy 
on  the  13th.  But  the  Valentine's  Meat  Juice  was  recommended  and  got  on 
the  llth,  and  it  is  suggested  that  the  wife  prepared  it  downstairs,  and 
that  he  had  an  opportunity  of  putting  this  concoction  from  the  poisonous 
fly-papers,  this  brown  liquid,  into  the  food,  or  into  the  brandy,  or  adminis- 
tering it  himself,  or  with  his  wife,  so  bringing  about  the  death.  Of  course, 

*This  passage,  and  the  repetition  of  the  words  "Do  not  be  too  much  prejudiced" 
(see  p.  401),  have  been  the  subject  of  considerable  comment  and  criticism. — ED. 

397 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Justice  Bueknill 

there  is  no  direct  evidence  that  he  did  it.  No  one  saw  him  do  it.  There  is 
no  direct  evidence  that  he  was  ever  seen  to  handle  a  fly-paper.  There  is 
no  direct  evidence  that  he  was  ever  seen  to  handle  the  meat  juice.  The 
only  thing  he  has  ever  been  seen  to  handle  was  the  brandy.  To  that 
extent  it  is  important  in  his  favour.  But,  then,  if  she  died  of  acute 
arsenical  poisoning,  it  is  said,  yes,  there  was  a  strong  motive  to  do  it,  and 
the  circumstances  of  the  13th,  shortly  before  she  died — not  calling  in  the 
doctor,  and  that  which  he  did  immediately  before  her  death — are  very, 
very  strong  to  lead  you  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is  the  man  whom  either 
alone  or  with  his  wife  directly  caused  this  woman's  death  by  feloniously 
administering  this  fly-paper  liquid  in  something,  and  so  bringing  about 
her  death. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  fly-papers,  how  does  it  stand?  As  the 
learned  Attorney-General  has  pointed  out  to  you,  his  case  stands  or  falls 
on  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Thorley  and  Miss  Wilson.  You  have  seen  Mr. 
Thorley,  the  chemist,  cross-examined,  and  you  have  heard  his  story,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  about  it  that  one  of  the  most  important  matters  in  this 
important  trial  is  this,  did  Maggie  Seddon  buy  Mather's  fly-papers  of  Mr. 
Thorley  on  26th  August,  1911?  I  think  I  ought  to  say  Mr.  Thorley  came 
into  the  witness-box  and  went  out  of  it  without  any  attack  being  made  upon 
his  character.  Sometimes  witnesses  are  attacked;  they  are  challenged 
as  to  their  credibility.  There  was  no  ground  for  attacking  Mr.  Thorley 
except  as  to  memory.  Now,  memory  does  play  the  fool  with  us  very 
often,  and  if  Mr.  Thorley  had  simply  said,  "  I  sold  the  fly-papers  to  that 
girl  on  26th  August,  because  I  know  it,"  you  might  very  well  say,  "  You 
are  very  likely  wrong."  But  if  he  gives  you  a  reason,  which  you  think  is 
a  good  reason,  and  explains  how  it  was,  apart  from  identification,  he 
remembers  he  sold  these  papers,  why,  then,  of  course,  to  that  extent  you 
will  ask  yourselves  whether  that  is  a  good  reason  for  his  recollecting  what 
he  swears  he  does  recollect.  He  says  he  was  short  of  these  fly-papers.  I 
do  not  suppose  anybody  denies  that.  He  says  he  had  not  got  as  many  as 
this  young  girl,  Maggie — according  to  him — asked  for.  She  wanted 
twenty-four  fly-papers,  or  four  packets,  there  being  six  in  the  packet.  She 
was  the  girl  whom  he  had  seen  at  the  side  door  of  his  shop  in  company 
with  his  daughter  or  daughters,  I  forget  which.  Her  face  was  therefore 
not  unfamiliar  to  him,  and  he  is  positive  that  on  26th  August  she  came 
and  asked  for  fly-papers,  and  asked  for  four  packets  of  fly-papers,  and  he 
told  her  that  he  could  not  give  her  four,  but  could  give  her  one,  and  she 
took  one,  and  paid  for  it,  and  there  was  an  end  of  it.  That  reason  given 
by  him  for  recollecting  it  may  be  a  good  reason.  Anyhow,  he  says,  "  It 
is  a  fact,  because  I  looked  at  my  invoice  book,  and  that  confirms  me." 
Of  course,  that  does  not  make  it  any  more  positive,  because  he  would 
make  the  entry  himself.  He  says,  "  I  was  out,  and  I  could  not  give 
her  four  packets,  but  I  gave  her  one,  and  she  took  one,  but  she  asked  for 
four."  That  was  on  26th  August.  He  did  not  recognise  her  until  some 
time  afterwards;  I  think  it  was  in  the  month  of  September. 

Mr.  MAKSHALL  HALL — February,  my  lord. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  am  much  obliged  to  you.  He  did  not  recog- 
nise her  until  February.  Therefore,  you  know,  memory  which  does  play 
398 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Buekniil 

false,  may  have  played  false  with  him.  Ask  yourselves  this  question,  do 
you  think  he  sold  fly-papers  to  Maggie  Seddon?  He  has  given  you  the 
reason  why  he  remembers  it.  He  did  not  make  an  entry  in  that  book  of 
the  person  to  whom  he  sold  them,  because  he  did  not  know  the  girl  as 
Maggie  Seddon.  From  August  to  February  is  a  long  time,  and  therefore  it 
is  suggested  to  you  that,  as  honest  as  he  is,  yet,  and  wishing  to  tell  the 
truth,  as  he  is,  he  is  mistaken,  and  mistaken  because  Maggie  says  he  is 
mistaken.  Then  he  is  asked  to  identify  her,  and,  if  you  recollect  the 
evidence,  he  says,  "  I  refused  to  identify  her  by  the  picture."  Now,  if  he 
was  shown  that  picture  by  the  police,  and  the  question  was  put  to  him, 
"  Is  that  the  girl  who  bought  fly-papers  ? "  I  should  feel  it  my  duty  to  say 
that  I  thought  that  that  was  not  the  right  way  to  have  gone  to  work.  I 
am  making  no  complaint;  I  do  not  know  how  it  was  done,  but  I  do  not 
think  it  would  have  been  right  for  the  police  to  have  gone  to  him 
and  said,  knowing  how  important  it  was  to  identify  this  girl  or  not,  as  the 
case  may  be,  shown  him  a  picture  and  said,  "  Look  here,  did  that  girl 
come  and  buy  fly-papers  1 "  The  proper  way  would  be  the  way  in  which  it 
was  done.  "  Go  into  that  room.  You  will  find  plenty  of  people  there. 
Come  back  and  tell  me  if  you  can  see  the  girl  who  came  in  and  bought 
fly-papers  from  you."  Mr.  Thorley  has  stated  very  positively,  "  I  did  not 
identify  her  by  the  picture."  You  will  remember  that  Mr.  Marshall  Hall 
first  mentioned  the  photograph,  and  then  he  said  a  picture.  I  should  not 
like  to  be  identified  always  by  pictures  which  appear  in  the  illustrated 
papers  sometimes,  and  which  are  more  or  less  hurriedly  taken,  and  which, 
not  being  photographs,  may  be  inaccurate,  although  at  the  same  time  very 
cleverly  done.  That  is  all  I  meant  to  say  when  I  mentioned  that  before. 
He  positively  swears  he  did  not  identify  her  by  her  picture.  Mr.  Marshall 
Hall  asked  him  whether  among  the  girls  in  that  room  it  was  not  the  fact 
that  she  was  the  only  one  who  had  her  hair  down,  and  he  said,  "  Oh,  I 
don't  know,  but  I  am  perfectly  certain  it  was  Maggie." 

You  get  this  fact  for  what  it  is  worth — I  do  not  know  whether  it  is 
worth  very  much,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  a  fact — and  it  is  for  you  to 
say  what  weight  you  give  to  it.  Mr.  Thorley's  shop  is  very  near  Miss 
Wilson's  shop,  and  it  is  now  an  admitted  fact — admitted,  I  think  I  may 
say,  by  Maggie ;  at  all  events,  Miss  Wilson  swears  to  it,  and  I  think 
Maggie  has  admitted  it  herself* — she  did,  on  the  26th  August,  go  to  Miss 
Wilson's  shop  and  make  a  purchase.  To  that  extent  it  is  a  coincidence, 
although  not  enough  to  hang  a  man  or  a  woman  either.  Perhaps  by  itself 
it  is  of  very  little  value,  but  when  you  are  asking  yourselves  whether 
Mr.  Thorley's  recollection  is  correct  or  not,  it  is  a  matter  for  your  con- 
sideration. Do  not  give  too  much  weight  to  it,  because  to  do  so,  I 
think,  would  be  wrong.  Rather  ask  yourselves  whether  you  are  satisfied 
that  Mr.  Thorley  is  right. 

Now,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  the  girl's  evidence.  Of  course, 
her  position  is  an  immensely  painful  one.  The  learned  Attorney- General 
has  found  it  his  duty  to  say,  and  he  said  it  as  well  as  it  can  be  said,  "  I 
do  not  want  to  attack  the  girl's  character,  but  seeing  that  she  stood  in 
that  box,  and  as  the  effect  of  her  evidence  in  a  certain  event,  that  is  to 


This  was  not  admitted  by  Maggie  Seddon.— ED. 

399 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Hr.  Justice  Bucknill 

say,  if  she  told  the  truth,  she  would  be  giving  very,  very  painful  evidence 
against  her  father  and  mother,  one  can  hardly  be  surprised  that  she  has 
eaid  what  she  has,  and  what  she  haa  said  is  not  true."  "Well,  there  is 
a  good  deal  in  that,  but  then,  again,  false  evidence  is  perjury,  and  honest 
people  do  not  perjure  themselves  on  any  account.  I  cannot  say.  I 
do  not  intend  to  say  more.  She  is  not  an  independent  witness.  Mr. 
Thorley  is  an  independent  witness.  The  girl  may  be  truthful  for  all  that. 
If  you  think  she  is  from  the  way  in  which  she  gave  her  evidence,  why, 
say  so,  and  that  part  of  the  case  falls  to  the  ground — and  a  very  important 
part  of  the  case  it  is,  too. 

Now  comes  her  examination  by  Ward.  She  was  at  the  Police  Court, 
and  Ward  wanted  to  get  some  information  from  her.  Now,  Chief 
Inspector  Ward  is  a  man  of  great  experience,  and,  from  what  I  know  of 
him,  I  should  venture  to  say  a  fair-minded  man ;  anyhow,  he  is  a  man  of 
great  experience,  and  knows  as  well  as  anybody  does  what  his  duties 
are  and  his  limitations.  He  saw  this  girl  at  the  Police  Court,  and  he 
was  minded  to  ask  a  question  of  her.  I  am  not  going  to  express  an 
opinion  about  that.  It  is  very  easy  to  express  opinions  which  may  or 
may  not  be  right.  I  am  just  going  to  tell  you  the  facts.  On  the  one 
hand  it  is  said  by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  in  very  strong  language,  which 
may  have  been  justified  (I  will  not  say  what  opinion  I  have  got ;  I  will 
not  express  my  view)  that  Ward  went  much  further  than  he  ought  to 
have  done,  and  that  he  ought  not  to  have  put  the  questions  that  he  did  ; 
therefore  his  examination  of  the  girl  was  an  impropriety  on  his  part.  The 
learned  Attorney-General  did,  as  I  am  doing,  refrain  from  expressing 
any  opinion.  If  you  think  Mr.  Marshall  Hall's  view  of  the  matter  is 
right  there  is  a  severe  criticism  concerning  Ward's  conduct,  but 
that  does  not  affect  the  answers  which  were  given ;  that  is  the  point. 
Now,  let  us  see  what  the  answers  were.  I  will  read  you  the  questions 
and  answers — 

Statement  of  Miss  Margaret  Seddon  who  says  :  I  am  16  years  of  age  and  a  daughter 
of  Mr.  F.  H.  Seddou  of  63  Tollington  Park.      [Of  course  he  knew  she  was  the  daughter 
of  the  accused  persons.]     By  Chief  Inspector  Ward :  I  am  going  to  take  a  statement 
from  you  respecting  your  dealings  with  the  chemist  whose  shop  is  situated  at  the  corner  ft 
of  Crouch  Hill  and  Sparsholt  Road.      The  name  of  the  chemist  is  Mr.  Thorley.      Answer  ~] 
by  Margaret  Seddon  :  I  know  the  shop,  but  I  have  never  been  in  it  or  bought  anything 
there. 

You  will  observe  there  that  there  has  been  no  question  put  to  bring  such 
an  answer.  The  answer  has  been  given  without  the  question ;  only  the 
introduction  having  been  given. 

Have  you  ever  been  to  any  other  chemist's  in  the  neighbourhood  to  purchase 
poison  including  poisonous  fly-papers  ?  Answer :  No.  [That  is  signed  by  Margaret 
Seddon.]  Have  you  ever  been  to  the  chemist's  shop  at  the  corner  of  Tollington  Park 
and  Stroud  Green  Road  to  purchase  Mather's  fly-papers  ?  [That  is  Price's  shop  you 
know.]  Answer  :  No.  Did  you  on  December  6th,  go  to  that  shop  to  purchase  Mather's 
fly-papers  ?  Answer  :  Yes,  I  went,  but  I  did  not  get  any.  The  chemist  was  going  to 
give  them  to  me  until  I  mentioned  my  name.  Question  :  Who  sent  you  for  them  ? 

I  think  that  was  not  put.     Anyhow  those  are  the  important  questions. 
Now,  it  is  said  that  the  girl  said  what  she  knew  to  be  untrue.     She  had 
been  to  Price's,  but  she  first  said  she  had  not.     She  said  she  had  not 
400 


Justice  BucknilPs  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

been  to  any  other  chemist's  shops  in  the  neighbourhood,  and  then  when 
the  further  question  is  put  to  her  she  said,  "  Yes." 

Gentlemen,  I  should  think  on  the  whole  it  would,  perhaps,  be  better 
not  to  place  too  much  importance  upon  this  particular  part  of  the  case. 
I  will  tell  you  why.  If  she  is  telling  the  truth  in  the  box  that  she  did 
not  buy  fly-papers  of  Mr.  Thorley,  what  does  it  matter?  If  she  did 
buy  fly-papers  and  is  telling  you  a  wilful  lie,  what  does  it  matter?  It 
is  only  supposed  to  be  a  corroboration  of  the  suggestion  of  the  Crown 
that  she  is  not  telling  the  truth.  But  you  have  seen  the  girl.  That  is 
why  I  tell  you  so  often  you  are  there  to  exercise  your  power  of  discrimina- 
tion as  to  the  falsehood  or  wickedness  of  the  evidence  so  often  judged 
by  the  demeanour  of  the  witness  in  the  box.  That  is  how  that  part  of 
the  case  stands.  If  these  fly-papers  were  bought  at  Thorley's  and  were 
taken  back  to  her  parents'  house  on  26th  August,  it  is  a  point  of  the 
most  serious  and  the  greatest  importance,  because  the  man  says  it  is  not 
so  and  he  never  saw  any,  and  the  woman  says  it  is  not  eo  and  that  the 

v   '  * 

only  fly-papers  she  saw  she  bought  herself.  The  Crown  suggests  that 
is  all  false,  and  that  the  fly-papers  that  the  man  sent  for,  or  the  woman 
sent  for,  were  not  put  into  the  room,  but  were  used  for  the  purpose  of 
being  boiled,  or  water  put  on  them,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  liquid 
for  the  purpose  of  mixing  with  some  food  or  medicine  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  to  this  woman — done  feloniously  with  intention,  and  the  most 
wicked,  abominable  act  was  carried  out  in  cold  blood. 

Let  us  go  for  a  moment  to  the  acts  of  the  husband  after  the  death. 
Of  course,  you  understand  that  is  not  evidence  of  motive ;  it  is  evidence 
which  is  laid  before  you  as  evidence  of  a  wicked  mind — the  knowledge  of 
a  crime  committed — of  a  course  of  conduct  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
people  off  the  scent.  Now,  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  spoke — and  everybody 
will  agree  with  him — in  very  strong  language  of  the  improper  conduct  of 
his  client  with  regard  to  this  funeral — hurrying  out  of  the  house  to 
make  a  bargain  for  a  public  grave,  and  to  take  12s.  6d.  discount.  It 
may  be  a  matter  of  business  or  commission,  whatever  you  like  to  call  it, 
but  to  get  her  buried  in  the  way  in  which  she  was  buried  when  she  might 
have  been  buried  in  a  really  proper  manner  befitting  her  position, 
befitting  her  fortune,  of  course,  indicates  that  Seddon  was  not  a  man  of 
generous  habits,  and  Mr.  Marshall  Hall  denounced  him  strongly,  but  said, 
"You  must  be  careful" — and  I  tell  you  the  same — "not  to  condemn 
him  of  this  because  he  was  guilty  of  that."  He  may  be  an  unfeeling 
creature,  he  may  be  so  careless  of  the  decencies  in  such  a  matter  as  to 
make  him  a  person  with  whom  you  would  not  care  to  associate,  but  it  is 
only  a  matter  of  prejudice ;  it  is  a  long,  long  way  off  proof  that  he  did 
this  murder.  It  was  bad — it  was  about  as  bad  as  it  could  be.  Pass  that 
over,  and  do  not  be  too  much  prejudiced*  against  him. 

Then,  with  regard  to  the  subsequent  conduct,  first  of  all  it  has  been 
said,  Why  did  he  not  send,  or  why  might  not  he  have  sent,  Ernie  to  tell 
the  Vonderahes?  I  think  I  put  the  question  myself.  They  did  not  live 
far  off.  If  he  had  sent  him  round  to  Evershot  Road  they  would  have 
told  him  there  where  they  were.  Why  was  he  not  sent  round  to  say, 
"  Chickie  is  dead"?  It  was  not  done.  The  answer  given  to  me  was, 
"  Because  he  wanted  the  body  out  of  the  house ;  the  baby  was  in  the 

*See  note,  p.  397.— ED. 

ic  401 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Justice  Bueknill 

house,  and  it  was  not  right."  That  might  apply  very  well  to  the  baby, 
because  the  baby  was  very  young ;  but  the  body  was  moved  out  that  very 
day.  It  stayed  there  twelve  hours,  and  it  was  taken  away  the  same 
afternoon.  Anyhow,  Ernie  Grant  was  not  sent,  nobody  was  sent;  but 
a  letter  was  said  to  have  been  written,  which  it  is  said  never  arrived. 
And  about  that  part  of  the  case  there  must  be  some  doubt.  It  was 
addressed  to  "31  Evershot  Road,"  when  the  Vonderahes,  as  we  now 
know,  were  not  there.  We  will  assume  Seddon  thought  they  were  there. 
He  says,  "  We  did  not  send  round  because  we  were  not  going  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  people  who  slammed  the  door  in  Maggie's  face." 
There,  again,  you  must  take  the  temperament  of  the  man.  I  do  not 
suppose  there  is  a  man  in  your  box  who  would  look  with  such  miserable 
spitefulness  on  such  a  small  transaction  as  that  as  he  did.  What  did  it 
matter  if  the  girl  had  the  door  slammed  in  her  face  compared  with  the 
importance  of  the  relatives  knowing  of  the  death  of  their  kinswoman? 
She  might  have  just  stood  out  in  the  street  and  shouted  it  out,  or  asked 
a  passer-by,  or  given  a  boy  2d.  to  go  round,  or  even  have  sent  a  telegram, 
or  done  something.  Nothing  was  done  except  the  letter,  and  it  is  said 
the  letter  was  not  written.  This  is  the  alleged  letter,  of  which  he  kept 
a  copy — 

Mr.  Frank  E.  Vonderahe,  Dear  Sir,  I  regret  to  have  to  inform  you  of  the  death  of 
your  cousin  Miss  Eliza  Mary  Barrow  at  6  a.m.  this  morning  from  epidemic  diarrhoea. 
The  funeral  will  take  place  on  Saturday  next  between  1  to  2  p.m.  Please  inform  Albert 
Edward  and  Emma  Marian  Vonderahe  of  her  decease,  and  let  me  know  if  you  or  they 
wish  to  attend  the  funeral.  I  must  also  inform  you  that  she  made  a  will  on  the  llth 
instant  leaving  what  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant  and  appointed 
myself  as  sole  executor  under  the  will,  Yours  respectfully,  F.  H.  Seddon.  Frank  Ernest 
Vonderahe,  31  Evershot  Road. 

They  say  that  letter  was  never  received.  He  kept  a  copy  of  it. 
What  do  you  think  of  the  letter?  "  I  must  also  inform  you  that  she 
made  a  will  on  the  llth  instant  leaving  everything  she  died  possessed  of 
to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appointed  myself  as  sole  executor." 
According  to  him,  this  will  only  disposed  of  the  jewellery,  furniture,  and 
effects  which  belonged  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Grant,  the  father  and  mother  of 
Ernie  and  Hilda.  It  was  only  intended  to  apply  to  that,  and  the  letter 
says  she  died  leaving  "  what  she  died  possessed  of " — all  she  died 
possessed  of  it  means,  I  suppose — "to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant." 

What  I  do  not  understand  for  the  moment  is  this  (if  there  is  an 
explanation,  I  should  very  much  like  to  know  it),  at  that  time  when  he 
was  writing  that  letter  he  had  made  a  search  in  the  trunk  and  in  the 
cash  box  for  money  which  he  believed  to  be  there;  he  believed  £216  at 
least  to  be  there,  or  part  of  that  money,  which  she  withdrew  from  the 
savings  bank.  The  wife  had  seen  her  withdraw  it,  and  the  wife  had 
said  she  believed  she  put  it  into  the  cash  box.  When  he  came  to  look 
for  the  money  he  must  have  expected  to  find  the  money.  He  was  greatly 
astonished  not  to  find  more  than  £4  10s.  ;  he  believed  she  was  possessed 
of  a  great  deal  more  on  llth  September,  before  she  died,  when  she  made 
this  will.  Therefore,  it  seems  to  me  there  is  no  answer  to  it  in  this 
respect  (I  do  not  know  what  importance  you  will  give  to  it),  that  then 
he  was  saying  to  himself,  "  The  jewellery  and  furniture  and  the  goods 
which  belonged  to  Mrs.  Grant,  let  them  go  to  the  two  children,  but  that 
402 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing   Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

is  not  all  she  had  got;  the  will  does  not  pass  all  that  she  is  possessed  of, 
because  she  has  got  a  lot  of  gold  in  the  cash  box."  He  never  told  the 
Vonderahes  that.  It  is  not  suggested  that  he  did.  He  did  not  say  it  in 
the  letter,  and  he  did  not  tell  them  one  single  word  about  having  opened 
this  cash  box,  and  opened  this  trunk,  to  look  for  the  gold  that  he  thought 
was  there,  and  to  his  great  surprise  was  not.  That  part  is  left  out  from 
the  letter.  And  when  we  go  to  the  next  document  it  is  also  apparently 
left  out.  The  will  says — 

This  is  the  last  Will  of  Mary  Barrow.  I  revoke  all  other  wills  ...  I  give 
and  bequeath  all  my  household  furniture,  jewellery  and  other  personal  effects  to  Hilda 
Grant  and  Ernest  Grant  ...  to  hold  all  my  personal  belongings,  furniture,  cloth- 
ing and  jewellery  in  trust  until  the  aforesaid  Hilda  Grant  and  Ernest  Grant  become  of 
age,  then  for  him  to  distribute  as  equally  as  possible  all  my  personal  belongings  com- 
prising jewellery,  furniture  and  clothing  to  them,  [and  so  forth,  and  so  forth]. 

That  is  the  will.  When  he  made  the  will  there  was  nothing  there 
about  the  gold  or  cash,  or  anything  else.  That  may  be  an  accident,  and 
much  less  important,  because  the  man  was  not  accustomed  to  making  a  will, 
and  he  may  very  often  draw  very  silly  documents  which  will  not  hold 
water  afterwards.  Therefore  I  should  not  give  the  same  importance  to 
that  as  I  think  you  might  think  it  necessary  to  give  to  the  letter.  The 
letter  seems  to  be  one  which  is  worth  your  most  serious  consideration. 
And,  then,  consider  the  mode  of  looking  for  this  gold  when  the  body  was 
being  attended  to  by  the  independent  witness  and  the  wife.  It  was  he 
who  made  the  search  in  the  first  instance,  not  the  wife;  you  will  remember 
he  said,  "  My  wife  gave  me  the  keys,  and  I  looked  in  the  cash  box,  and 
I  looked  in  the  trunk,  and  afterwards  we  looked  together  in  the  drawers." 
He  admits  himself  that  he  was  the  person  who  looked  while  the  wife, 
according  to  him,  is  looking  after  the  body.  Considering  the  indecent 
hurry  in  opening  that  cash  box  and  opening  the  trunk  to  see  what  this 
poor  woman  who,  according  to  the  letter,  was  only  possessed  at  that  time 
of  furniture,  jewellery,  and  apparently  nothing  else,  although  he  expected 
to  find  gold  in  the  cash  box — that  letter  is  a  very,  very  serious 
document  for  your  consideration.  That  is  the  conduct  after  the  death. 
It  is  said  that  that  conduct  on  the  14th  points  only  one  way — to  guilt. 
That  is  for  you. 

Now,  for  one  moment,  let  us  consider  the  conduct  before  the  death. 
I  must  take  you  to  a  much  earlier  date,  because  I  want  to  say  this  in  his 
favour ;  I  want  to  say  it  in  both  ways  if  I  can.  A  great  deal  has  been 
said  about  that  public-house  and  barber's  shop  transaction,  and  really  (it 
is  for  you,  not  for  me)  everything  seems  to  have  been  done  in  order.  The 
woman  was  a  woman  of  sound  mind  and  understanding.  Whatever  her 
reasons  were,  she  was  willing  to  assign  to  him  her  interest  in  the  barber's 
shop  and  public-house.  It  was  done  by  a  solicitor  who  represented  her, 
and  a  solicitor  who  represented  him.  The  figures  were  properly  worked 
out,  and  the  deeds  were  properly  drawn  up.  It  is  a  perfectly  simple  deed 
by  which  he  binds  himself  in  consideration  of  an  assignment  to  pay  her 
so  much  a  year  for  life.  So  much  has  been  said  about  it  one  way  or 
the  other,  but  I  think  where  you  get  independent  witnesses  like  Mr.  Russell, 
a  gentleman  in  a  high  position  as  a  solicitor,  saying  that  that  transaction 
was  perfectly  fairly  carried  out,  it  is  rather  difficult  to  say  that  it  was  not. 

403 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

Mr.  Justice  BucknUl 

Therefore  she  was  a  free  agent  to  do  what  she  liked  with  this  property, 
and  she  freely  and  voluntarily  (and  her  letters  show  it)  assigned  to  him, 
and  he  bound  himself  to  pay  her  this  annuity.  You  recollect  that  this 
public-house  business  was  only  concluded  in  January;  in  the  October 
previous  the  negotiations  began  about  the  public-house  affair,  but  were 
not  concluded  until  January.  And  about  the  same  time,  August,  or 
September,  or  October,  there  was  the  question  of  £1600  3£  per  cent. 
India  stock,  but  here  he  has  not  got  the  good  fortune  to  be  able  to  produce 
a  document.  He  has  told  us  it  was  in  the  nature  of  an  annuity  certificate 
given  by  him  to  her.  That  may  be  quite  true ;  it  has  not  been  found,  but 
still  it  is  not  proved  that  it  did  not  exist.  He  says,  "  I  gave  it  to  her." 
At  all  events,  he  acted  upon  it ;  he  paid  her  regularly  £10  a  month  made 
up  of  £4  re,  the  public-house  and  barber's  shop,  and  £6  re  the  India 
3£  per  cent,  stock.  She  got  it;  there  is  no  suggestion  that  can  be  made 
that  she  did  not  get  it.  He  was  punctual  in  his  payments,  and  many 
receipts  have  been  put  in.  But  then,  of  course,  there  was  always,  if  a 
man  had  got  a  wicked  and  murderous  mind,  as  it  is  alleged  he  had,  the 
motive,  "  Well,  if  I  could  only  get  her  out  of  the  way  I  shall  not  have 
to  pay  her  annuity  any  more,  and  I  shall  have  the  capital  to  do  as  I 
like  with,  and  the  property  to  do  as  I  like  with."  Gentlemen,  it  is  a 
far  cry  off  murder,  but  still  that  is  the  allegation  against  him — he  is  a 
murderous  creature  who  did  these  things  for  the  purpose  of  getting  back 
his  money  and  freeing  himself  of  the  obligation.  It  is  entirely  for  you 
to  say.  A  more  important  point  I  should  suggest  for  you  to  consider 
was  the  gold  in  the  cash  box.  He  thought  there  was  gold  in  the  cash 
box.  He  said  so.  He  does  not  say  how  much  he  thought  was  there. 
He  said  when  Miss  Barrow  offered  him  the  custody  of  the  cash  box,  she 
said  there  was  only  £30  to  £35  there,  but,  anyhow,  he  thought  there  was 
gold  in  the  house.  Of  course,  if  this  woman  was  robbed  of  these  notes 
and  of  this  gold,  of  which  there  is  no  direct  evidence,  it  would  be  the 
thing  for  wicked,  criminal  people  to  get  her  out  of  the  way,  but,  at  all 
events,  it  is  put  in  this  way ;  taking  all  these  facts  into  consideration,  the 
public-house  property,  the  India  3£  per  cent,  stock  transaction,  the 
possession  of  the  notes  by  the  wife  which  were  cashed  by  her,  it  is  sug- 
gested it  was  a  joint  affair  between  them — all  those  circumstances  coupled 
with  the  conduct  of  the  man  immediately  after  the  funeral,  coupled  with 
the  letter  and  the  will — all  those  matters  make  up  such  a  case  against 
him  that  you  can  have  no  reasonable  doubt  that  he  is  the  man  who 
administered  the  poison  which  killed  this  woman. 

Gentlemen,  there  is  very  little  more  to  be  said,  except  about  the 
question  of  the  money  which  had  been  seen  in  this  cash  box  from  time  to 
time.  Hook  has  told  you  he  saw  a  lot  in  bags.  That  is  the  beginning  of 
the  history.  Ernie  Grant  has  said  he  saw  the  bags  at  a  very  late  period 
of  her  life ;  she  put  them  on  the  bed,  and  she  was  counting  money — 
money,  not  notes.  There  is  the  suggestion  that  this  deceased  person  was 
in  the  habit  of  keeping  money  in  the  cash  box ;  that  she  was  in  the  habit 
of  hoarding  the  money ;  she  hoarded  gold ;  she  liked  it ;  the  money 
which  came  from  the  savings  bank  was  put  there.  It  is  suggested  that 
to  this  money  which  she  could  not  have  spent  (or  there  is  no  evidence 
that  she  spent  it)  was  added  the  money  from  the  annuity.  As  you 
404 


Justice  BucknilPs  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

have  been  told  so  often  in  this  case  by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  there  is  no 
direct  evidence  of  it  all.  No  single  witness  comes  forward  and  says, 
"  She  showed  me  so  much  money,"  or  "  Told  me  she  had  so  much  money," 
except  the  Vonderahes  and  Hook,  which  was  a  long  time  before  this.  In 
passing,  you  must  remember  this,  that  Hook's  testimony  has  been  some- 
what discounted  by  a  quarrel  he  had  had  with  her;  she  would  not  have 
him;  she  did  not  want  him;  she  turned  him  out.  So  it  may  be  said 
with  some  justice  that  you  should  be  careful  how  you  accept  Hook's 
evidence,  because  Hook  is  a  man  who  had  no  good  feeling  for  her 
really,  because  he  thought  it  was  a  rare  good  thing  for  him  to  live  with 
her,  and  she  had  turned  him  out  either  because  of  his  neglect  or  of  his 
troublesome  conduct.  To  that  extent  you  may  think  it  necessary  to 
discount  Hook's  evidence.  But  there  were  the  Vonderahes.  I  do  not 
know  what  attack  could  be  made  against  them.  I  do  not  know  what 
can  be  said  against  them.  I  do  not  suppose  you  want  me  to  read  their 
evidence  to  you  about  it. 

Now,  I  come  really  to  the  concluding  sentence  or  two  which  I  wish 
to  utter.  Did  she  die  of  acute  arsenical  poisoning?  In  all  probability 
you  will  say  yes  because  Dr.  Willcox  says  so,  and  Dr.  Spilsbury  says  so, 
and  they  are  uncontradicted.  That  is  not  enough,  however,  to  justify  a 
verdict  of  guilty  against  either  of  these  people.  Was  that  arsenic  which 
BO  caused  her  death  a  fatal  dose,  administered  within  either  three  days 
or  four  or  five  hours  by  the  prisoners  or  either  of  them?  I  have  nothing 
more  to  say  upon  that  subject  now  except  to  implore  you  to  remember  that 
the  Crown  has  to  make  out  the  guilt.  It  is  not  for  the  accused  persons 
to  do  it.  The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  Crown,  and  they  have  to 
satisfy  you  beyond  the  reasonable  doubt  of  honest  men  on  an  important 
matter,  as  in  the  statement  I  read  to  you,  just  now  of  the  guilt.  If  you 
are  not  satisfied,  you  will  say,  "  Not  guilty  "  as  against  both.  If  you 
think  that  the  woman  is  not  guilty,  why,  of  course,  you  will  only  be  too 
glad  to  say  so. 

The  law  in  the  matter  with  regard  to  husband  and  wife  is  very  simple. 
In  olden  days  it  was  considered  more  than  it  can  be  said  now — I  am  not 
speaking  jokingly — that  wives  were  more  under  the  subjection  of  the 
husbands.  To-day  women  are  more  civilised,  and  they  are  on  a  different 
basis,  so  to  speak,  in  husband  and  wife  relationship  than  they  ever  used  to 
be.  The  old  law  still  stands — if  any  wife  in  the  presence  of  the  husband 
does  a  criminal  act,  murder  and  treason  excepted,  it  is  supposed  if  she 
does  it  in  the  presence  of  her  husband  she  is  acting  under  his  marital 
coercion.  But  that  does  not  apply  to  murder ;  a  woman  cannot  plead  or 
ask  the  Court  to  direct  a  jury  to  say  there  is  that  presumption  in  her 
favour  in  a  case  of  alleged  murder ;  she  stands  exactly  as  any  other  person 
would  do.  It  is  too  heinous  an  offence  for  the  rule  ever  to  be  applied  to 
euch  a  case.  But  you  must  be  satisfied  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that 
this  woman  did  act  in  the  way  in  which  it  is  alleged  she  did,  either  by 
putting  the  poison  into  the  food  herself,  or  by  giving  it  herself,  or  by 
helping  the  husband  to  give  it  himself,  so  that  she  did  something  of  such 
importance  in  the  matter  that  you  are  satisfied  that  she  was  acting  with 
him  in  one  common  object,  one  common  murderous  design  of  taking  this 
woman's  life  away.  I  asked  one  witness  whether  she  thought  that  the 

405 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


Mr.  Justice  Bucknill 

wife  seemed  honestly  solicitous  about  the  woman's  health.  She  said, 
"  Quite."  Are  you  satisfied  that  you  can  find  a  verdict  of  guilty  of 
wilful  murder  against  her?  If  you  are  driven  to  do  it,  do  it,  and  I  will 
tell  you  why — because  even  although  she  is  a  woman,  she  comes  under 
the  same  laws  as  anybody  else;  she  is  one  member  of  a  society  in  a 
civilised  country.  If  she  is  guilty  of  murder  she  has  got  to  pay  the 
penalty  of  it  just  the  same  as  if  it  were  a  man.  Do  not  be  moved  by 
sympathy.  Do  not  be  moved  by  fear.  You  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
consequences.  We  are  not  here  to  think  of  consequences.  Believe  me 
we  are  not.  I  am  sure  there  must  be  men  in  your  body  who  would  have 
given  anything  not  to  have  been  in  this  case.  I  can  only  tell  you,  as  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  I  have  the  same  feelings.  But  we  have  got  to  do  it. 
We  are  both  bound  under  our  oaths — the  oath  that  I  took  and  the  oath 
that  you  took — to  do  justice.  Justice  means  to  acquit  them  if  you  have 
a  doubt.  Justice  directs  you  shall  convict  if  they  are  guilty. 

With  regard  to  the  man,  it  is  said  that  this  is  designed  cold-blooded 
murder,  done  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  woman's  money,  or  avoiding 
the  result  of  obtaining  money  which  he  had  got  from  her,  it  may  be, 
illegally.  That  is  more  or  less  speculation;  I  mean  to  say  there  has  been 
no  direct  proof  given  of  one  single  dishonest  act  on  his  part;  he  is  not 
proved  to  have  robbed  her;  it  has  not  been  proved  that  he  obtained  these 
notes  from  her  which  his  wife,  it  is  alleged,  cashed,  no  more  than  his  wife 
did.  His  wife  came  into  possession  of  them.  It  is  not  altogether  incon- 
sistent with  the  dead  woman  having  given  them  to  the  wife,  as  she  says 
she  did.  His  obligations  have  been  faithfully  carried  out  in  the  two 
matters  in  which  he  had  bound  himself — the  India  3J-  per  cent,  stock  and 
the  public-house.  But  his  conduct  has  been  very  suspicious.  However, 
you  cannot  convict  on  suspicion.  Take  all  these  circumstances  into  your 
consideration.  Take  all  the  circumstances  which  you  know  are  material 
to  the  point,  not  irrelevant  circumstances — guard  yourself  from  that — not 
circumstances  which  would  arise  from  prejudice  or  gossip.  I  am  sure  you 
will  not  think  about  what  you  have  heard  about  the  case.  That  would  be 
wicked.  If  you  find  yourself  compelled  to  give  a  verdict  hostile  to  him 
you  will  do  it.  It  matters  not  what  religion  a  man  belongs  to,  what 
nationality  he  is,  what  sect  or  brotherhood  or  anything  else  he  may  belong 
to,  he  who  lives  under  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  the  country  in  which 
he  abides  must  keep  them,  and  if  he  breaks  them  he  must  pay  the  penalty, 
even  although  the  penalty  be  his  life. 

Gentlemen,  may  you  have  strength  given  to  you  to  come  to  the  true 
conclusion.  These  people  cannot  be  tried  again.  May  you  have  strength 
given  you  to  do  that  which  is  and  will  be  justice  if  you  do  it  on  the  lines 
which  I  have  indicated  to  you.  Then,  whatever  the  result  may  be  (which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  you),  you  will  have  at  all  events  the  gratifying 
testimony  of  a  clear  conscience. 

The    jury    retired    at    3.58,    and    returned    into    Court    at 
4.58  p.m. 

The  DEPDTT-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Are  you  agreed  upon  your  verdict? 
The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JUKT — We  are. 
406 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

Mr.  Justice  Bueknil 

The  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Do  you  find  Frederick  Henry  Seddon 
guilty  or  not  guilty  of  wilful  murder  ? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — Guilty. 

The  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Do  you  find  Margaret  Ann  Seddon 
guilty  or  not  guilty  of  wilful  murder  ? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — Not  guilty. 

[At  this  point  Seddon  turned  and  kissed  his  wife,  who  became 
hysterical.] 

The  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — You  say  that  Frederick  Henry 
Seddon  is  guilty  and  Margaret  Ann  Seddon  is  not  guilty,  and  that  is  the 
verdict  of  you  all? 

The  FOREMAN  OF  THE  JURY — That  is. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Tell  her  she  is  discharged,  will  you? 

[Mrs.  Seddon  was  then  removed.] 

The  DEPUTY-CLERK  OF  THE  COURT — Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  you  stand 
convicted  of  wilful  murder.  Have  you  anything  to  say  for  yourself  why 
the  Court  should  not  give  you  judgment  of  death  according  to  law? 

The  PRISONER  (F.  H.  SEDDON) — I  have,  sir.  I  do  not  know  whether 
anything  I  have  to  say  can  in  any  way  affect  the  judgment  that  is  about 
to  be  passed  upon  me,  but  there  is  one  thing  that  is  quite  patent  to  me, 
and  that  is,  that  these  moneys  which  it  is  suggested  by  the  prosecution  was 
in  Miss  Barrow's  possession  have  not  been  in  any  way  traced  to  my  account, 
either  during  the  life  of  Miss  Barrow  or  since  her  death.  There  is  the 
sum  of  £165  suggested  in  notes  turned  into  gold.  There  is  the  sum  of 
£216  which  was  stated  to  have  been  drawn  out  in  June.  There  is  the  sum 
of  £91  which  has  been  paid  to  Miss  Barrow  in  the  shape  of  annuities  by 
me.  If  Hook's  evidence  is  accepted,  there  was  the  sum  of  £420  in  the 
house.  I  think,  my  lord,  that  that  sum  comes  to  something  like  £890 
odd.  The  prosecution,  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  has  traced  my  banking 
accounts  back  to  the  year  1907  or  1908.  I  have  had  submitted  to  me 
documents  at  Brixton  Prison  which  I  have  gone  through  from  that  date, 
and  I  am  in  a  position  to  explain  every  item  on  my  banking  accounts  during 
that  period.  All  that  the  prosecution  has  brought  up  against  me  in  the 
shape  of  money  is  the  sum  of  £155,  which  is  since  Miss  Barrow's  decease. 
It  has  been  stated  during  the  evidence  just  yesterday  and  to-day  that 
the  sum  of  £200  was  stated  that  I  had  in  my  possession.  I  clearly  pointed 
out  from  the  witness-box  when  it  was  stated  there  that  it  was  not  £200 
which  the  Attorney-General  stated  (it  was  very  near  the  sum  of  £216  which 
Miss  Barrow  drew  in  June).  I  clearly  stated  then  that  it  was  £170  which 
I  claimed  to  have  in  my  possession,  which  was  testified  to  by  three  inde- 
pendent witnesses.  There  were  other  witnesses  in  my  home  that  I  could 
have  brought  forward  proving  that  I  had  that  money  in  my  possession, 
who  have  not  been  called  in  this  case.  I  clearly  show  that  the  money  I 
put  in  the  Post  Office  Savings  Bank,  £30,  that  the  £35  I  put  into  my 
current  account,  say,  £65,  and  £90  that  I  invested  in  the  building  society 
shares,  say,  £155,  and  £15  which  I  reserved  for  my  holidays,  was  the 
sum  of  £170,  and  yet  since  I  have  stated  that  in  the  box  it  has  been 
stated  over  £200,  or  £200  thereabouts. 

There  is  one  other  point  that  I  would  like  to  put,  and  that  is  regard- 
ing Thorley's  evidence  regarding  the  alleged  purchase  of  arsenical  poison 

407 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

F.  H.  Seddon. 

packets.  If  it  was  true  that  my  daughter  went  to  Thorley's  for  the 
purchase  of  arsenical  fly-papers  on  26th  August,  and  he  informed  her  that 
he  had  only  got  one  packet  of  arsenical  fly-papers  in  his  possession,  and 
that  he  would  have  more  in  on  Monday,  I  have  not  heard  one  word  said 
as  to  whether  my  daughter  went  back  on  the  Monday  for  the  other  three 
packets  of  arsenical  fly-papers.  I  have  not  heard  any  evidence  adduced 
that  if  my  daughter  required  the  four  packets  of  fly-papers  she  called  at 
any  other  chemist  on  the  way  back  again.  If  she  was  sent  either  by 
me  or  her  mother  for  four  packets,  that  is  twenty-four  fly-papers;  naturally 
the  girl  would  get  the  four  packets  of  fly-papers  either  at  the  chemist's 
shop  she  went  to,  or  she  would  call  on  some  other  chemist's  shop  on  the 
way  coming  back,  as  there  are  plenty  on  the  way.  Another  point  I  want 
to  put  forward  in  respect  to  the  alleged  purchase  of  this  packet  of  fly-papers 
from  Thorley's.  It  has  been  brought  forward  by  the  prosecution  that  my 
daughter  called  at  Miss  Wilson's  on  the  way.  It  is  not  stated  what  the 
distance  is,  but,  as  far  as  I  can  judge,  if  Thorley's  shop  is  anywhere  in 
the  vicinity  of  Crouch  End  station  it  is  a  much  further  distance  than  what 
has  been  stated  as  two  minutes'  walk  from  there. 

I  should  also  like  to  mention,  my  lord,  that  in  your  summing  up — I 
do  not  know  whether  I  am  quite  clear  upon  it  or  not — you  said  there  was 
a  time  when  the  wife  left  me  in  the  room  when  the  will  was  being  prepared. 
I  have  no  recollection  that  my  wife  stated  that  she  left  the  room  at  any 
time.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  have  never  been  in  Miss  Barrow's  room  alone 
from  the  1st  September  until  the  date  of  death.  On  4th  September  it  is 
stated  that  I  went  up  to  speak  to  Miss  Barrow,  to  remonstrate  with  Miss 
Barrow  about  leaving  her  room.  I  did  go  up  on  that  occasion  to  remon- 
strate with  Miss  Barrow  about  leaving  her  room,  but  I  was  not  alone; 
my  wife  was  with  me.  I  do  not  know  when  my  wife  stated  she  was  not. 
It  is  not  true.  She  did  not  state  it.  I  do  not  know  she  stated  it ;  I  do  not 
believe  she  was  ever  questioned  upon  the  point. 

I  should  also  like  to  state  that  there  has  been  no  witnesses  called 
respecting  my  possession  of  the  jewellery  previous  to  the  death  of  Miss 
Barrow.  There  are  witnesses  respecting  my  being  in  possession  of  this 
jewellery.  There  is  an  independent  witness. 

It  has  been  stated  by  the  prosecution  that  Miss  Barrow  was  devotedly 
attached  to  the  boy,  Ernest  Grant.  It  has  been  pressed  home  to  the  jury 
by  the  prosecution  that  Miss  Barrow  was  very  devotedly  attached  to  the 
boy — that  she  intended  to  make  him  her  heir.  There  has  been  no  witnesses 
brought  forward  by  the  defence  to  contradict  that  assertion.  I  contradict 
it,  for  Miss  Barrow  had  repeatedly  shaken  the  boy  in  the  street,  and  she  has 
from  time  to  time  in  the  home  shaken  him  and  shouted  at  him,  and  woke 
us  up  in  the  morning  shouting  at  him  when  she  has  been  getting  him  ready 
for  school.  It  has  been  stated  on  one  occasion,  and  one  occasion  only, 
did  she  threaten  to  throw  herself  out  of  the  window  in  consequence  of  the 
annoyance  that  the  boy  gave  her.  There  is  witnesses  to  prove  that  this 
kind  of  thing  went  on  between  Miss  Barrow  and  the  boy,  and  even  to  the 
extent  that  she  said  it  was  getting  [inaudible].  That  was  Robert  Hook 
that  gave  evidence. 

I  venture  to  say  that  my  position  in  this  case  is  this  :  I  am  surrounded 
by  a  set  of  circumstances  from  which  there  seems  no  way  of  extricating 
408 


Justice  Bucknill's  Summing  Up. 

F.  H.  Seddon. 

myself  if  I  am  condemned  on  circumstantial  evidence.  It  seems  to  me  that 
various  points  that  might  be  in  my  favour  perhaps  have  not  been  given 
sufficient  consideration  to.  I  say  in  this  way,  that  had  Miss  Barrow 
thrown  herself  out  through  the  bedroom  window,  this  set  of  circumstances 
would  be  just  the  same.  I  would  have  been  believed  to  have  thrown  her 
out  or  pushed  her  out  through  the  window.  Had  Miss  Barrow  fallen 
downstairs  the  same  thing  would  have  applied.  If  she  had  been  killed, 
Mr.  Seddon  had  such  interest  in  the  matter  he  would  have  thrown  her 
downstairs.  When  she  went  to  Southend-on-Sea,  had  she  have  fallen  into 
the  sea  Mr.  Seddon  would  have  pushed  her  into  the  sea.  The  same  set  of 
circumstances  would  have  operated  against  me.  I  can  see  through  it. 

There  is  another  point  I  would  like  to  mention.  My  wife  found  a 
bottle  of  gin  in  her  bedroom  after  her  death.  That  has  never  been  men- 
tioned in  the  evidence.  We  do  not  know  where  Miss  Barrow  got  that  bottle 
of  gin  from.  It  was  half-full  of  gin.  We  do  not  know  what  was  in  the 
gin.  We  know  that  it  was  only  half-full.  This  inquiry  did  not  take  place 
for  fully  two  months  after  the  woman  was  buried;  therefore  we  do  not 
know  what  she  was  possessed  of.  Evidence  has  not  been  given  that  all 
the  bottles  that  were  in  Miss  Barrow's  room  were  taken  away — made  a 
present  of  to  the  charwoman,  so  she  "  could  get  a  few  ha'pence,"  as  she 
called  it,  to  get  a  bit  of  food  for  her  children.  We  do  not  know  what 
bottles  Miss  Barrow  had  or  what  they  contained.  We  have  not  the  slightest 
idea  as  to  whether  Miss  Barrow  committed  suicide  or  not. 

I  should  like  to  put  at  this  point  that  you  referred  in  your  summing 
up,  my  lord,  to  the  jury,  that  Dr.  Willcox  has  stated  that  a  dose  would 
produce  violent  pains  in  half  an  hour,  or  something  like  half  an  hour, 
after  it  had  been  taken  or  administered.  You  have  heard  in  evidence  that 
while  I  am  at  the  theatre  Miss  Barrow  has  called  out,  "  I  am  dying  " — that 
is  supposed  to  have  been  at  twelve  o'clock.  If  that  statement  is  true  (I 
made  a  note  of  it  when  it  was  mentioned)  that  violent  pains  would  ensue 
half  an  hour  after  the  dose  being  taken,  there  is  that  possibility  that  the 
woman  had  taken  a  dose  of  arsenic,  and  it  had  begun  to  operate  with  these 
violent  pains,  and  she  calls  out  "  I  am  dying."  Otherwise  why  should  she 
eay  "  I  am  dying "  when  she  had  the  same  pain  off  and  on  from  the  1st 
or  2nd  September  to  the  14th?  Then  earlier  in  the  morning  she  states 
again,  "  I  am  going."  All  this  is  quite  clear  to  me  when  I  come  to  look 
at  the  evidence.  As  I  stated  before,  it  was  a  puzzle  to  me  how  she  could 
get  arsenic,  but  when  I  come  to  look  at  it,  and  think  it  over,  it  seems  to 
me  that  that  woman  knew  she  was  dying,  she  knew  she  was  going,  and 
therefore  she  must  have  had  a  reason  for  saying  she  was  going. 

Regarding  what  Maggie,  my  daughter,  said  in  her  evidence  in  the 
box  that  she  was  pressed  by  Detective  Ward  for  her  explanation  of  her 
purchase  of  fly-papers.  I  understand  her  clearly  to  say  that  from  the 
way  the  question  was  put  to  her  she  said,  "  I  did  not  buy  fly-papers," 
and  she  meant,  as  she  explained  there,  that  she  did  not  "  get  them." 
That  was  her  explanation — she  did  not  get  them.  She  may  have  gone 
to  purchase  them  at  Price's,  on  the  instructions  of  Mr.  Saint,  the  solicitor, 
which  I  am  not  concerned  about ;  it  is  after  I  am  arrested.  But  my 
daughter  has  been  terrorised  evidently  by  Inspector  Ward  into  the  state- 
ment. She  has  already  contradicted  that  she  ever  bought  them  at 

409 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

F.  H.  Seddon. 

Thorley's.  Then  he  comes  round  to  the  question  of  whether  she  bought 
them  at  Price's,  and  so  he  gets  her  in  a  moment  of  thoughtlessness — 
misunderstanding  his  question — to  say  "  No."  He  takes  advantage  of 
that  opportunity  for  to  get  her  signature  to  it. 

It  has  not  been  stated  in  the  evidence,  my  lord,  that  Detective- 
Inspector  Ward  after  arresting  me  went  to  my  home  and  tried  to  terrorise 
my  wife  into  making  statements.  I  have  only  my  wife's  word  for  it;  I 
was  not  there  as  a  witness,  but  she  stated  that  Detectiye  Ward  tried  in 
every  possible  way  to  terrorise  her  into  making  statements,  and  telling 
her  what  trouble  she  would  get  into  if  she  did  not  admit  this  and  did  not 
admit  that.  If  he  can  be  capable  of  doing  a  thing  like  that — and,  further, 
he  said,  when  he  found  he  could  not  get  her  to  agree  to  the  statement  he 
suggested  to  her,  he  said,  "  I  have  not  done  with  you  yet." 

You  have  also  referred,  my  lord,  to  the  letter  that  I  sent  to  the 
Vonderahes  after  her  death  wherein  I  omit  to  state  anything  at  all  regard- 
ing money.  I  thought  I  pointed  out  in  the  witness-box  that  at  that 
moment  when  I  wrote  that  letter,  the  search  having  been  made  in  the 
box,  there  was  no  money  to  mention.  I  had  not  had  the  money.  The 
prosecution  has  never  traced  the  money  to  me.  The  prosecution  has  not 
traced  anything  to  me  in  the  shape  of  money,  which  is  the  great  motive 
>  suggested  by  the  prosecution  in  this  case  for  my  committing  the  diabolical 
crime  of  which  I  declare  before  the  Great  Architect  of  the  Universe  I  am 

(not  guilty,  my  lord.  Anything  more  I  might  have  to  say  I  do  not 
suppose  will  be  of  any  account,  but,  still,  if  it  is  the  last  words  that  I 
speak,  I  am  not  guilty  of  the  crime  for  which  I  stand  committed. 

Sentence. 

The  judge  having  assumed  the  black  cap,  and  the  chaplain  having 
been  eummoned, 

AN  USHER  OF  THE  COURT — Oyez  !  Oyez  !  Oyez  !  My  lords  the  King's 
Justices  do  strictly  charge  and  command  all  persons  to  keep  silence  while 
sentence  of  death  is  passing  upon  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  upon  pain  of 
imprisonment.  God  save  the  King ! 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  you  have  been  found 
guilty  of  the  wilful  murder  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  .  With  that  verdict  I 
am  bound  to  say  I  agree.  I  should  be  more  than  terribly  pained  if  I 
thought  that  I,  in  my  charge  to  the  jury,  had  stated  anything  against  you 
that  was  not  supported  by  the  evidence.  But  even  if  what  you  say  is 
strictly  correct,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  you  ever  were  left  at  a 
material  time  alone  in  the  room  with  the  deceased  person,  there  is 
still  in  my  opinion  ample  evidence  to  show  that  you  had  the  opportunity 
of  putting  poison  into  her  food  or  into  her  medicine.  You  have  a  motive 
for  this  crime ;  that  motive  was  the  greed  of  gold.  Whether  it  was  that 
you  wanted  to  put  an  end  to  the  annuities  or  not,  I  know  not — you  only  can 
know.  Whether  it  was  to  get  the  gold  that  was  or  was  not,  but  which 
you  thought  was,  in  the  cash  box,  I  do  not  know.  But  I  think  I  do 
know  this,  that  you  wanted  to  make  a  great  pecuniary  profit  by  felonious 
means.  This  murder  has  been  described  by  yourself  in  the  box  as  one 
410 


Sentence. 

Mr.  Justice  Bueknill. 

which,  if  made  out  against  you,  was  a  barbarous  one — a  murder  of  design, 
a  cruel  murder.  It  is  not  for  me  to  harrow  your  feelings. 

The  PRISONER  (F.  H.  SBDDON) — It  does  not  affect  me.  I  have  a  clear 
conscience. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  have  very  little  more  to  say,  except  to 
remind  you  that  you  have  had  a  very  fair  and  patient  trial.  Your 
learned  counsel,  who  has  given  his  undivided  time  to  this  case,  has  done 
everything  that  a  counsel  at  the  English  bar  could  do.  The  Attorney- 
General  has  conducted  this  case  with  remarkable  fairness,  and  the  jury 
have  shown  a  patience  and  intelligence  I  have  never  seen  exceeded  by  any 
jury  with  which  I  have  had  to  do.  I,  as  minister  of  the  law,  have  now 
to  pass  upon  you  that  sentence  which  the  law  demands  has  to  be  passed, 
which  is  that  you  have  forfeited  your  life  in  consequence  of  your  great  crime. 
Try  to  make  peace  with  your  Maker. 

The  PRISONER  (F.  H.  SEDDON) — I  am  at  peace. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — From  what  you  have  said,  you  and  I  know  we 
both  belong  to  one  brotherhood,  and  it  is  all  the  more  painful  to  me  to 
have  to  say  what  I  am  saying.  But  our  brotherhood  does  not  encourage 
crime ;  on  the  contrary,  it  condemns  it.  I  pray  you  again  to  make  your 
peace  with  the  Great  Architect  of  the  Universe.  Mercy — pray  for  it,  ask 
for  it.  It  may  be  some  consolation  to  you  to  know  that  I  agree  with 
the  verdict  that  the  jury  has  passed  with  regard  to  your  wife.  But  that 
does  not  make  it  better  for  you.  Whatever  she  has  done  that  was  blame- 
worthy in  this  case,  short  of  any  criminal  offence,  if  there  was  anything  I 
feel  that  she  did  to  help  you,  not  to  murder,  but,  it  may  be,  at  some  time 
to  deal  improperly  with  these  notes 

The  PRISONER  (F.  H.  SEDDON) — She  done  nothing  wrong,  sir. 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — I  am  satisfied  that  the  jury  have  done  well 
and  rightly  in  acquitting  her.  I  am  satisfied  that  they  have  done  justice 
to  you.  And  now  I  have  to  pass  sentence. 

The  sentence  of  the  Court  is  that  you  be  taken  from  hence  to  a  lawful 
prison,  and  from  thence  to  a  place  of  execution,  and  that  you  be  there 
hanged  by  the  neck  until  you  are  dead ;  and  that  your  body  be  buried 
within  the  precincts  of  the  prison  in  which  you  shall  have  been  confined 
after  your  conviction ;  and  may  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  your  soul ! 

The  CHAPLAIN — Amen. 

The  prisoner  having  been  removed — 

Mr.  JUSTICE  BUCKNILL — Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  consideration  of 
the  time  which  has  been  occupied  in  this  case,  you  are  excused  from 
serving  on  a  jury  for  a  period  of  ten  years. 

[END  OP  THE  TRIAL.] 


II 


; 


APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX     A. 
(Exhibit  24.) 

63  Tollington   Park, 

August  8th,   1910. 

Miss  Barrow, — As  you  are  so  impudent  to  send  the  letter  to  hand,  I  wish 
to  inform  you  that  I  shall  require  the  return  of  my  late  Mother's  and  Sister's 
furniture,  and  the  expense  of  my  moving  here  and  away. — Yours, 

R.  D.    HOOK. 

P.S. — I  shall  have  to  take  Erny  with  me  as  it's  not  safe  to  leave  hfm  with 
you  and  he  not  to  go  out  again  to-night.  R.  D.  HOOK. 


APPENDIX  Al. 


31  Evershot  Road,  Tollington  Park,  N., 
24th  March,  1910. 


Messrs.   Frere  &  Co. 
Dear  Sirs, 


Re  BUCK'S  HEAD. 


I  beg  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter  of   14   March,   1910. 
My  relative  who  advises  me  has  referred  to  sub-section  3  of  section  3  of  the 
Licensing  Act,   1904,  of  which  you  speak,  and  he  informs  me  that  as  my  lease  is 
of  the  same  term  within  a  few  days  as  that  of  my  tenant,  I  am  entitled  to  deduct 
as   follows : — 

For  1905,  11  per  cent,  of  £50,  -  -        -  -  £5  10    0 

1906,  12  per  cent,  of  £30,  -  -        -  -  3  12    0 

1907,  13  per  cent,  of  £40,     -                 -  -  5    4    0 

1908,  14  per  cent,  of  £40,  -  5  12    0 

1909,  15  per  cent,   of  £40,  -        -  -  600 

£25  18    0 


This  will  more  than  balance  any  rent  due  for  more  than  12  months. 

Yours   truly, 

E.    M.   BAKKOW. 
412 


Appendices. 

APPENDIX    B. 

(Exhibit  1.) 

63  Tollington  Park,  London,  N. 

14th   Septr.,    1911. 
Mr.   Frank  E.    Vonderahe. 

Dear  Sir, — I  sincerely  regret  to  have  to  inform  you  of  the  death  of  your 
Cousin,  Miss  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  at  6  a.m.  this  morning,  from  epidemic  diarrhoea. 
The  funeral  will  take  place  on  Saturday  next  about  1  to  2  p.m. 

Please  inform  Albert  Edward  and  Emma  Marion  Vonderahe  of  her  decease, 
and  let  me  know  if  you  or  they  wish  to  attend  the  funeral. 

I  must  also  inform  you  that  she  made  a  "  will "  on  the  llth  instant  leaving 
what  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda  and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appointed  myself  as 
sole  Executor  under  the  "  will." — Yours  respectfully, 

F.    H.    SEDDON. 

Mr.    Frank   Ernest  Vonderahe, 
31   Evershot   Road, 

Finsbury   Park,    N. 


APPENDIX    C. 

(Exhibit  3.) 

63  Tollington  Park,  London,  N., 

21st   Septr.,    1911. 

To  the  relatives  of  the  late  (Miss)  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  who  died  Sept.  14th 
instant  at  the  above  address,  from  epidemic  diarrhoea,  certified  by  Dr. 
Sworn,  5  Highbury  Crescent,  Highbury,  N.  (Duration  of  illness,  10  days.) 

As  Executor  under  the  "  will "  of  Miss  Barrow,  dated  Septr.  llth,  1911, 
I  hereby  certify  that  Miss  Barrow  has  left  all  she  died  possessed  of  to  Hilda 
and  Ernest  Grant,  and  appointed  me  as  sole  executor  to  hold  in  trust  until  they 
become  of  age.  Her  properties  and  investments  she  disposed  of  through  Solicitors 
and  Stock  Exchange  Brokers  about  October  and  December  1910  last  to  purchase 
a  life  annuity  (which  she  has  received  monthly  up  to  the  time  of  her  death), 
and  the  annuity  died  with  her.  She  stated  in  writing  that  she  did  not  wish 
any  of  her  relatives  to  receive  any  benefit  at  her  death,  and  during  her  last 
illness  declined  to  have  any  relations  called  in  to  see  her,  stating  they  had 
treated  her  badly  and  had  not  considered  her,  and  she  would  not  consider  them. 
She  has  simply  left  furniture,  jewellery  and  clothing. 

(Sd.)       F.    H.    SEDDON. 
(Executor.) 


APPENDIX    D. 

(Exhibit   4.) 

THIS  is  THE  LAST  WILL  AND  TESTAMENT  of  Me,  Eliza  Mary  Barrow,  of 
63  Tollington  Park,  Finsbury  Park,  in  the  County  of  London,  N.  I  HEREBY 
REVOKE  all  former  wills  and  codicils,  and  in  the  event  of  my  decease  I  GIVE 
AND  BEQUEATH  all  my  household  furniture,  jewellery,  and  other  personal  effects 
to  Hilda  Grant  and  Ernest  Grant  and  appoint  FREDERICK  HENRY  SBDDON  of 

413  . 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

63  Tollington  Park,  London,  N.,  SOLE  EXECUTOR  of  this  my  Will  to  hold  all 
my  personal  belongings,  furniture,  clothing  and  jewellery  in  trust  until  the 
aforesaid  Hilda  Grant  and  Ernest  Grant  become  of  age  (as  they  are  at  this  date 
Minors).  Then  for  him  to  distribute  as  equally  as  possible  all  my  personal 
belongings  comprising  jewellery,  furniture  and  clothing,  to  them  or  to  sell  for 
cash  any  article  of  furniture  or  clothing  either  of  them  do  not  desire  and  equally 
distribute  the  cash  so  realized,  but  no  article  of  jewellery  must  be  sold. 

SIGNED    this    eleventh   day    of    September,    One   thousand    nine    hundred    and 
eleven.  ELIZA    MARY    BAHROW. 

Witness :    Margaret  Ann   Seddon    (Mrs.). 
Witness :   William   Seddon  (Senior). 


APPENDIX     E. 

(Exhibit  5.) 
(Memorial   Card.) 
In   ever  Loving  memory 

of 

Eliza   Mary  Barrow, 

who  departed  this  life  Sept.  14th,    1911, 
Aged   49  years. 

Interred   in   Islington    Cemetery,    East   Finchley. 
Grave  No.   19453,   sec.  2. 

A  dear  one  is  missing  and   with   us  no  more, 
That  voice  so  much  loved  we  hear  not  again, 

Yet  we  think  of  you  now  the  same  as  of  yore, 
And   know  you  are  free  from   trouble  and   pain. 


APPENDIX    F. 

(Exhibit  7.) 

63   Tollington   Park,   N., 

27th  March,    1911. 
To  Mr.   F.    H.    Seddon. 

Dear  Mr.  Seddon, — My  only  nearest  living  relatives  are  first  cousins ;  their 
names  and  addresses  are  Frank  Ernest  Vonderahe,  31  Evershot  Road,  N.  ; 
Albert  Edward  Vonderahe,  82a  Geldiston  Road,  Upper  Clapton ;  Emma  Marion 
Vonderahe,  Gorringe  Park  Hotel,  Clapton  (or  Clapham)  Common,  and  it  is  not 
my  will  or  wish  that  they,  or  any  other  relation  of  mine,  should  receive  any- 
thing belonging  to  me  at  my  death,  or  receive  any  benefit  whatever  at  my 
decease,  they  have  not  been  kind  to  me,  or  considered  me. — Yours  sincerely, 

ELIZA    MARY  BARROW. 

414 


Appendices. 
APPENDIX   G. 

(Exhibit    39.) 

(Copy  Mem.  in  prisoner's  handwriting,   found  among  papers  taken  from  his  house 

by  police.) 

£10  Cash  found  at  Miss  Barrow's  death. 
STATEMENT    OF    How    UTILISED 

Board    for    Ernest    Grant — 2  weeks    at    10s.,          -        -        -  £1     0    0 

Milk    Bill, 0    6    6£ 

14    days   at    Is.    per    day   due    to    Maggie,    -        -        -        -  0  14    0 

7s.   6d.   tips  to  bearers  &  grave-diggers  &  £4  funeral,         -  476 

Doctor's    bill, -  1    5    0 

Ernie's    Holiday    Southend    on   Sea,        -  1    2    6 

„        Pocket    Money,                                                     -        -  020 

„        Fare,            019 

Death    "Probate"    Certificate, 037 

Inventory,         ...                -        -  1    1    0 

Woman    for  laying    out,    &c.,    cleaning    rooms,      -        -  050 

Suit  of  clothes,  &c.   (Pants  extra),  for  Ernie,       -  0  13    0 

£11    1  10 


APPENDIX     H. 

LETTER  WRITTEN  BY  SEDDON  TO  HIS  WIFE  ON  THE  EVE  OF   HIS 

EXECUTION. 


H.M.  Prison,  Pentonville,   16  April,  1912. 

My   Dear  Wife  Margaret    x    x    x    x    x    x 

Love  and  kisses  to  all  my  Children    xxxxxxxx 
Special  for  Ada  and  Baby  Lily    x    x    x    x    x    x 

I  have  just  received  your  most  welcome  letter,  though  it  is  undated  and  I 
cannot  tell  when  you  wrote  it,  and  you  did  not  put  the  number  of  the  house.*  I 
am  surprised  to  hear  of  the  early  arrival  of  Sister  Agnes  and  Uncle  Fred  and 
Aunt  Annie,  and  note  they  will  be  here  to  see  me  to-day.  I  heard  from  the 
Governor  that  I  was  to  have  visitors  from  Liverpool  to-day,  but  I  did  not  know 
who.  What  a  great  and  alarming  surprise  for  you  to  be  knocked  up  at  1  a.m. 
midnight.  I  suppose  you  thought  it  was  the  King's  Messenger  with  a  free  pardon, 
or  myself  suddenly  released ;  however  I  am  glad  to  know  you  have  visitors  to 
relieve  your  mind  of  the  great  strain  and  break  the  monotony.  Many  a  good  time 
I  have  had  with  Uncle  Fred,  and  my  mind  goes  back  to  the  happy  few  days  we 
spent  together  in  the  Isle  of  Man  with  him.  It  does  not  do  to  think  of  the  past 
with  such  a  future  before  you,  and  I  have  to  dismiss  all  such  thoughts  from  my 
mind,  and  I  now  await  the  interview  with  them,  and  I  will  strive  to  make  it  as 
pleasant  as  possible  to  them ;  it  only  causes  pain  and  anguish  if  they  found  I  was 
down  in  the  dumps,  and  that  is  not  so.  I  am  still  cheerful,  and  will  be  till  the 
last,  thanks  to  a  clear  conscience  which  sustains  me,  and  this  brings  me  to  another 
important  matter  I  wish  to  prepare  you  against.  You  remember  in  Crippen's 
case  how  false  reports  went  about,  and  how  he  was  supposed  to  have  made  a  con- 
fession of  his  guilt;  all  kinds  of  tales  and  rumours,  and  false  statements  do  get 
about,  and  if  you  should  see  anything  in  the  papers  which  you  know  is  not  true, 


*Mrs.  Seddon  had  removed  from  Tollington  Park.— ED 

415 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


instantly  deny  it.  Believe  nothing  unless  you  first  see  it  in  my  very  own  hand- 
writing, and  signed  by  me,  and  believe  nothing  whatever  that  may  be  told  to  you 
by  anyone,  no  matter  who  it  is.  I  have  nothing  to  confess,  and  the  following 
will  be  my  "  final  "  statement,  and  believe  nothing  to  the  contrary,  and  instantly 
deny  anything  to  the  contrary. 

THIS  is  MY  "  FINAL  "  STATEMENT,  I  SWEAR  BEFORE  GOD  IT  is  THE  TRUTH. 

/  am  Not  Guilty  of  the  Murder  of  Eliza  Mary  Barrow.  I  swear  that  I  have  never 
purchased  arsenic  in  my  life  in  any  shape  or  form,  neither  have  I  at  any  time  instructed, 
directed,  or  influenced  the  purchase  of  arsenic.  I  did  not  administer  arsenic  to  her  in  any 
shape  or  form,  or  any  other  poison,  neither  did  I  advise,  direct,  instruct,  or  influence  the 
administration  of  arsenic,  or  any  other  form  of  poison  to  the  deceased.  And  I  further 
swear  that  I  had  no  knowledge  that  she  died  from  arsenical  poisoning  ;  I  believed  she  died 
from  epidemic  diarrhoea — as  per  Dr.  Sworn's  certificate.  I  solemnly  swear  before  my 
Creator,  to  Whom  all  secrets  are  revealed,  that  this  is  a  true  statement,  and  the  Law,  in 
its  seeming  blindness  and  misguided  justice,  has  condemned  an  Innocent  Man. 

F.    H.   SEDDON. 

This  you  may  let  all  my  children,  all  my  family,  and  relatives  read  that 
they  may  know,  if  they  see  anything  to  the  contrary,  that  no  reliance  may  be 
placed  upon  it.  If  I  cannot  prove  my  innocence,  no  more  than  the  prosecution 
could  establish  my  guilt,  still,  while  I  have  breath,  I  shall  protest  it  in  the  sight 
of  God. 

I  will  now  surprise  you  by  a  chapter  of  incidents  since  my  arrest  that  will 
make  you  all  wonder  whether 

THE  NUMBER  13  is  UNLUCKY. 
In  my  case  it  certainly  appears  so ! 

Miss  Barrow  came  to  my  house  August,  1910.  Died  Sept.  1911.  Months  13 
Took  ill  Sept.  1st.  Died  Sept.  14th.  Days  13 

I   arrested   Dec.   4th.     Old   Bailey  trial,   March   4th.  Weeks  13 

Attended    Inquest    twice.     Police    Court    11   times.  Total    13 

Appeal  heard  April  1st  (13th  week  in  .New  Year).  13 

Grounds  of  appeal.  13  points  of  law  on  appeal  paper  made  by  Solicitor.  13 
Reprieve  papers  to  be  sent  in  to  Solicitor  as  arranged  by  him.  April  13 
Left  Brixton  Prison  in  Van  (several  times)  with  13  Prisoners.  13 

Returned  to  Brixton  Prison  with   13   Prisoners.  13 

Been  with  19  Prisoners  and  position  changed,  placing  me  13th  in  line.       13 
Exercised   several  occasions  at   Brixton   with  13  prisoners. 
Sat  at  meal  table  in  Hospital  Ward,  Brixton  Prison.     13  at  table.  13 

Repeatedly  found  myself  with  the  number  13  prisoners  in  Hospital 

Ward.  13 

Official  Number  given  to  me  on  arrival  at  Pentonville,  13,990. 
Cash  in  hand  at  Pentonville  belonging  to  me  6s.  6d.   (Sixpences  13).  13 

Sent  Wife  a  letter,  and  inadvertently  placed  a  number  of  crosses  as 

kisses.     Counted  13 

Sent  Young  Daughter  Ada  a  note  with  7  kisses.     She  replied  with  6. 

Total  13 
I  made  this  out  on  Good  Friday,  April  5th,  and  found,  on  reflection, 

that  it  was  just  13  days  to  date  fixed  for  execution,  18  April.  13 

This  will  be  considered  by  many  people  as  a  mere  chapter  of  coincidences, 
and  I  would  add  that  the  set  of  circumstances  that  has  surrounded  my  case,  which 
has  been  the  means  of  my  conviction,  are  just  as  strange,  and  are  a  mere  chapter 
of  coincidences  on  which  a  perfectly  innocent  or  business  interpretation  could  have 
been  placed,  but  on  which  the  prosecution  placed  the  worst  possible  construction, 
and  thus  secured  my  conviction. 

There  it  is.  Strange  but  true.  Now  I  must  close  with  Sincere  Love  and 
Best  Wishes.  God  Bless  You  All.  Love  to  Father. 

Your  Affectionate  and  Innocent  Husband, 

FRED. 

[The  foregoing  occupies  all  the  space  allotted  for  writing  on  the  prison  paper, 
but  inter -written  between  two  of  the  pages,  and  underlined,  are  the  words, 
"Bring  Baby  to-morrow."] 

416 


Appendices. 


APPENDIX    J. 

COURT  OF  CRIMINAL  APPEAL. 
1-2  APEIL,  1912. 

(Before  Mr.  Justice  Darling,  Mr.  Justice  Channel,  and  Mr.  Justice  Coleridge.) 

The  prisoner,  Frederick  Henry  Seddon,  who  was  represented  by  Mr.  E. 
Marshall  Hall,  K.C.,  M.P.,  appealed  from  his  sentence. 

GROUNDS  OF  APPEAL. 

1.  There  was  not  sufficient  evidence  that  Miss  Barrow  died  of  acute  arsenical 
poisoning. 

2.  There  was  no  evidence  that  I  ever  was  in  possession  of  arsenic. 

3.  There  was  no  evidence  that  I  ever  administered  arsenic  to  Miss  Barrow. 

4.  The  evidence  of  Walter  Thorley  as  to  purchase  of  fly-papers  on  the  26th 
day   of  August,  1911,  by  my  daughter  Margaret  was  inadmissible. 

5.  The  evidence  of  identification  of  my  daughter  Margaret  by  Walter  Thorley 
was  insufficient  and  untrustworthy. 

6.  The  statement  of  my  daughter  Margaret,  dated  the  2nd  day  of  February, 
1912,   was   improperly  obtained  by   Chief   Inspector   Ward. 

7.  The  evidence  as  to   my   wife  having   cashed  bank   notes  was   inadmissible 
as  against  me,  but  the  learned  judge  omitted  to  point  this  out  to  the  jury. 

8.  My    wife    and    I    were    jointly    charged   with   murder ;    the    evidence    was 
directed   equally  against  both  of  us,   and  there  was   no  evidence   upon  which  the 
jury  could  discriminate   between    us.     The    verdict   is   therefore   unreasonable   and 
cannot  be  supported  having  regard  to  the  evidence. 

9.  The  learned   judge   misdirected  the   jury  when   he   said,    "  So  there  was  a 
time  when  the  wife  left  the  husband  with  the  deceased  woman." 

10.  The   learned   judge   omitted   to  point   out   to  the   jury  that  my  wife  was 
called   as  a   witness   for  me,   and  that  her  evidence,  if  they  believed   ft,   went   to 
establish  my  innocence   no  less  than  her   own. 

11.  The  learned  judge  omitted  to  point  out  to  the  jury  that  the  presence  of 
Mrs.   Longley  in  my  house  was  an  important  matter  in  my  favour. 

12.  The  learned  judge  omitted  to  caution  the  jury  that  my  conduct  after  the 
death  of  Miss  Barrow  pointed  to  guilt  of  larceny  only,  and  not  to  guilt  of  murder. 

13.  The  learned  judge  was  wrong  in  ruling  that  there  was  evidence  of  murder 
to   go  to   the   jury. 

After  hearing  arguments  by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall,  their  lordships  retired  for  a 
short  time,  and  on  their  return  into  Court  the  following  judgment  was  delivered 
by  Mr.  Justice  Darling : — 

JUDGMENT. 


red 


In  this  case  the  appellant  was  indicted  jointly  with  his  wife  for  the  murder 
of  Miss  Barrow,  and  after  a  ten  days'  trial,  and  the  giving  of  a  large  amount  of 
evidence,  the  wife  was  found  not  guilty  and  the  prisoner  was  found  guilty  and 
sentenced  to  death.  Against  this  verdict  he  appeals. 

We  think  that  before  dealing  with  the  points  raised  it  is  necessary  that  we 
should  state  what  are  the  powers  of  this  Court  under  the  Act.  The  powers  of 
the  Court  do  not  amount  to  a  re-hearing  of  the  case ;  we  interfere  only  if  there 
has  been  a  wrong  judgment  on  a  point  of  law,  or  if  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  having 
regard  to  all  the  evidence  in  a  case,  is  unreasonable  in  point  of  fact,  or  if  on  a 
general  view  of  the  case  in  law  and  fact  it  appears  that  there  has  been  a  mis- 
carriage of  justice. 

Various  points  have  been  taken  for  the  appellant  in  this  case ;  the  first  is 
that  there  was  not  sufficient  evidence  that  Miss  Barrow  died  of  acute  arsenical 
poisoning.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Court  there  was  ample,  and  in  fact,  conclusive, 
evidence  that  she  did  die  from  that  cause.  Secondly,  that  there  was  no  evidence 
that  the  appellant  was  ever  in  possession  of  arsenic  or  ever  administered  arsenic 
to  Miss  Barrow.  That  is  true,  but  such  evidence  as  that  was  not  essential;  had 
evidence  been  forthcoming  that  he  was  seen  to  give  her  arsenic  with  his  own 
I  D  417 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 

hand,  and  that  she  died  within  a  short  time  thereafter,  it  would  not  have  been 
a  case  of  circumstantial,  but  of  direct,  evidence.  The  next  point  is  that  the 
evidence  of  identification  of  Maggie  Seddon  by  Thorley  was  insufficient  and  un- 
trustworthy ;  but  that  was  evidence  which  was  fairly  left  to  jury,  and  the  question 
was  decided  by  them;  their  decision  was  not  unreasonable,  and  the  Court  cannot 
interfere  on  this  ground.  The  next  point  made  was  that  the  evidence  of  Mrs. 
Seddon  having  cashed  bank  notes  was  inadmissible  as  against  the  appellant,  but 
that  the  judge  omitted  to  point  out  this  to  the  jury ;  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
sufficient  connection  between  the  wife  and  husband  as  to  the  affairs  of  Miss  Barrow 
was  shown  to  make  the  evidence  admissible.  A  great  point  has  been  made  here 
that  the  wife  was  called  as  a  witness  for  the  appellant,  so  she  could  be  asked 
anything  that  could  be  asked  of  any  other  witness  for  the  defence ;  the  questions 
were  perfectly  legitimate. 

Then  it  was  said  that  the  wife  and  the  appellant  were  jointly  charged  with 
murder ;  that  the  evidence  was  directed  equally  against  both,  and  there  was  no 
evidence  on  which  the  jury  could  discriminate  between  them,  and  that  the  verdict 
was  therefore  unreasonable ;  it  was  further  said  that  the  judge  omitted  to  point 
out  to  the  jury  that  if  they  believed  Mrs.  Seddon's  evidence  it  went  to  establish 
the  appellant's  innocence  no  less  than  her  own.  It  is  necessary  that  we  should 
make  clear  the  logical  effect  of  the  verdict.  Both  prisoners  were  given  in  charge 
of  the  jury,  Mrs.  Seddon  was  found  not  guilty  and  the  appellant  guilty ;  that 
meant  as  to  the  appellant  that  he  did,  either  by  his  own  hand,  or  by  the  hand 
of  another,  administer  arsenic  fatally  to  Miss  Barrow  with  the  intent  that  she 
should  die,  and  as  to  Mrs.  Seddon  that  it  was  not  proved  that  she  administered 
the  poison,  or  that,  if  she  did,  it  was  not  proved  that  she  did  so  knowing  it  was 
poison  and  intending  to  kill.  It  is  a  mistake  to  say  that  it  means  she  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  affair ;  in  this  country  there  are  no  means  of  expressing 
in  a  verdict  the  difference  between  "innocent"  and  "not  proved  guilty."  The 
fallacy  is  shown  in  this  case  by  this ;  it  was  insisted  over  and  over  again  that  the 
onus  was  on  the  Crown  to  prove  the  case ;  if  so,  the  verdict  as  to  the  wife 
necessarily  means  that  the  case  has  not  been  proved,  though  it  may  mean  more. 
When  that  is  considered  it  is  apparent  that  there  is  nothing  illogical  in  acquitting 
the  wife  for  want  of  proof  and  convicting  the  husband.  There  may  be  evidence 
against  him  which  did  not  bear  against  her.  Again,  with  regard  to  her  being 
called  as  a  witness  on  his  behalf.  She  gave  evidence,  but  we  cannot  say  how 
much  of  it  the  jury  believed;  it  does  not  follow  that  they  believed  it  all;  it  is 
seldom  that  a  witness  with  a  strong  interest  tells  the  whole  truth  and  nothing 
but  the  truth.  So  there  is  no  logical  dilemma  in  acquitting  the  wife  and  not 
the  husband. 

The  next  point  is  that  the  judge  omitted  to  point  out  to  the  jury  that  the 
appellant's  conduct  after  the  death  of  Miss  Barrow  pointed  to  guilt  of  larceny 
only,  and  not  to  guilt  of  murder.  If  the  judge  had  told  the  jury  so  it  would 
have  been  a  misdirection.  It  is  untrue  to  say  it  only  pointed  to  larceny ;  it  was 
for  the  jury  to  say  from  all  his  actions  what  it  was  that  the  appellant  wished 
to  conceal ;  his  omission  to  notify  Miss  Barrow's  decease  to  the  Vonderahes  (for 
it  is  incredible  that  he  really  sent  them  a  letter ;  the  production  of  a  copy  is 
almost  enough  to  make  the  jury  disbelieve  this) ;  the  fact  that  he  did  not  publish 
the  death  in  the  papers ;  the  hurried  way  in  which  the  funeral  was  arranged,  were 
all  evidence  that  he  desired  to  conceal  the  fact  that  Miss  Barrow  died  of  arsenic, 
and  that  he  thought  the  sooner  she  was  put  out  of  the  way  the  better. 

There  was  no  point  of  law  here  on  which  any  wrong  decision  was  given,  so 
it  only  remains  for  us  to  deal  with  the  main  point  raised,  that  the  judge  was 
wrong  in  ruling  that  there  was  evidence  of  murder  to  go  to  the  jury.  In  our 
opinion  there  was  ample  evidence  at  that  point.  It  is  true  that  as  the  case  pro- 
ceeded the  case  for  the  prosecution  was  much  strengthened  by  the  cross-examina- 
tion of  the  appellant,  but  the  judge  was  right  to  leave  the  case  to  the  jury. 
The  case  having  been  left  fairly  to  them,  the  jury  found  him  guilty, 
never  be  supposed  that,  because  a  particular  point  is  not  referred  to  by  a  judge, 
that  point  is  not  in  the  minds  of  the  jury.  It  is  true  that  there  are  points 
which  it  is  desirable  should  have  been  within  the  consideration  of  the  jury,  and 
to  which  allusions  cannot  be  found  in  the  summing  up,  but  we  are  satisfied  that 
these  points  were  not  absent  from  the  consideration  of  the  jury.  The  jury  must 
have  had  it  in  mind  when  Mrs.  Seddon  gave  evidence  that  it  was  evidence  to 
which  they  must  have  regard  in  deciding  on  their  verdict  in  Seddon  s  case. 

418 


Appendices. 


was  called  on  behalf  of  Seddon,  so  this  must  have  been  impressed  on  the  minds 
of  the  jury.l  If  the  judge  did  not  mention  it,  it  was  because  it  was  unnecessary 
to  do  so.  The  Court  has  no  reason  to  think  that  the  jury  were  wrong  in  coming 
to  the  conclusion  they  did  come  to.  Then  is  there  any  ground  for  saying  that 
the  verdict  was  unreasonable?  The  Court  cannot  say  so.  The  main  point 
differentiating  this  case  from  certain  other  circumstantial  cases  of  poisoning  is 
that  no  poison  was  traced  to  the  physical,  manual  possession  of  the  appellant ; 
it  was  traced  to  the  house,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  put  by  Seddon 
into  anything  that  Miss  Barrow  took.  But  the  absence  of  that  evidence  does  not 
justify  us  in  saying  that  the  jury  were  unreasonable  in  giving  the  verdict  they 
did. 

Beyond  doubt  Miss  Barrow  died  of  arsenical  poisoning,  and  the  appellant 
had  a  strong  motive  for  killing  her,  as  he  had,  by  means  which  could  not  be 
described  as  commendable,  become  possessed  of  all  her  property,  and  had  given 
her  nothing  of  any  value  in  return  but  the  promise  of  an  annuity  at  the  rate 
of  £1  a  week.  2  If  this  sum  was  above  the  market  rate  the  motive  was  stronger 
than  if  it  had  been  a  purely  business  transaction.  On  these  grounds,  and  on 
the  grounds  that  his  conduct  on  the  night  of  her  death  was  that  of  a  man  antici- 
pating her  death;  that  he  did  not  do  the  natural  thing,  namely,  go  to  fetch 
the  doctor,  and  that  immediately  after  the  death  he  was  founds  looking  for  what 
money  was  left  in  her  room ;  that  three  days  before  her  death  he  made  a  will 
constituting  himself  executor,  and  therefore  in  control  of  her  property ;  that  he 
never  notified  the  relatives  of  the  death,  and  that  he  arranged  the  burial  with 
extreme  haste,  and  not  in  the  natural  way — for  although  he  had  in  his  possession 
a  document  which  showed  that  she  had  a  right  to  be  buried  in  a  vault,  yet  he 
handed  her  over  to  a  common  grave  and  invited  no  one  to  the  funeral ;  on  all 
these  grounds  it  may  be  said  that  the  verdict  was  not  unreasonable.  There 
was  no  one  of  whom  it  was  suggested  by  the  defence  that  they  might  have  poisoned 
Miss  Barrow,  and  the  suggestion  that  she  committed  suicide  either  purposely  or 
accidentally  has  not  been  seriously  contended,  and  is  a  hypothesis  no  jury  would 
be  likely  to  adopt.  In  all  these  circumstances,  although  no  manual  possession 
of  the  poison  by  appellant  was  shown,  the  jury  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
case  was  proved.  There  was  evidence  on  which  they  could  legally  and  reason- 
ably so  find,  and  the  Court  does  not  desire  to  indicate  that  it  would  have  come 
to  any  other  conclusion.  There  is  therefore  no  power  for  this  Court  to  interfere 
with  the  verdict,  and  the  appeal  is  dismissed. 

APPENDIX     K. 


NOTE  ON   THE   CASE  BY  FREDERICK   HENRY   SEDDON. 

It  has  dawned  upon  me  that  after  I  took  those  notes  (£25  out  of  Bedroom 
safe  to  Bank)  that  I  replaced  the  £25  by  taking  £20  gold  from  Office  Safe  and 
£5  I  had  loose  cash,  thus  bringing  up  the  amount  in  bedroom  safe  to  £100  again, 
and  leaving  only  £80  in  office  safe.  Later  £10  was  taken  from  Bedroom  safe 
to  pay  annuity  to  deceased  and  I  had  not  replaced  it  at  time  of  her  death  so 
that  left  £90  in  Bedroom  safe. 

I  complied  with  the  wishes  of  the  deceased,  carried  out  my  obligations  and 
kept  boy  10  weeks  after  death  till  Police  took  him  away. 

Had  cash   £1520  &  did   not  pay  off  mortgage  £200   on  my  house. 

Purchased  14  houses  with  cash  as  greater  security  for  her  &  thus  bound 
myself  to  London  so  I  could  not  get  away  readily  if  I  had  wanted  to. 

At  Inquest  learned  body  was  exhumed  and  yet  attended  same  &  freely  gave 
evidence  re  my  financial  transactions  with  deceased,  inquest  adjourned  for  21 
days  for  Home  Office  expert  to  analyse  intestines,  yet  as  innocent  man  knowing 
this  I  went  about  business  as  usual  expecting  nothing  to  happen  &  surprised  at 


1  It  was  in  fact  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Marshall  Hall. — ED. 

2  The  annuity  amounted  to  £4  a  week.— ED. 

:i  He  went  for  the  doctor  first,  and  searched  for  the  money  afterwards.— ED. 


419 


Trial  of  the  Seddons. 


result  of  analysis  &  arrest.  Did  not  attempt  in  any  way  to  avoid  arrest,  did 
not  attempt  to  dispose  of  properties  transferred  to  me  by  deceased,  improved  the 
investments  &  all  is  still  intact  &  not  depreciated,  but  greatly  improved  in  value, 
returning  double  what  the  deceased  previously  received  from  it. 

I  do  not  benefit  under  "  Will "  that  is  left  to  two  children,  no  relatives  of 
deceased.  I  only  intended  it  to  be  a  temporary  "  Will  "  &  intended  to  take 
it  to  a  Solicitor  &  have  a  proper  one  drawn  up  from  it  for  her  signature  but  her 
death  took  place  unexpectedly.  I  intended  to  go  &  visit  Mr.  Keeble  with  it 
&  see  him  some  time  about  £5  he  owed  me. 

Deceased  died  about  6  to  6.30  a.m.  &  my  assistants  stated  I  counted  £100 
or  £200  in  gold  about  9  p.m.  same  night,  my  bedroom  safe  is  in  room  just  below 
hers,  therefore  I  would  not  be  likely  to  take  her  money  so  far  down  to  my  office 
in  basement  &  then  wait  all  day  tiU  late  at  night  to  count  "Stolen"  (?)  money 
in  the  presence  of  my  assistants.  (If  Notes  were  stolen,  deceased  would  have 
missed  them,  especially  so  many  over  a  period  of  11  months.)  The  deceased  only 
kept  the  boy  "  Grant  '  for  her  own  selfish  ends  &  convenience. 

There  was  no  motive  for  me  to  commit  such  a  crime,  I  would  have  to  be  a 
greedy  inhuman  monster,  or  be  suffering  from  a  degenerate  or  deranged  mind, 
as  I  was  in  good  financial  circumstances,  21  years  in  one  employ,  a  good  position, 
a  good  home  with  every  comfort,  a  wife,  5  children  &  aged  Father  (73)  depending 
on  me,  my  income  just  on  £15  per  week  to  pay  the  deceased  the  small  annuity 
of  £2  8s.  0.  weekly  &  out  of  this  my  daughter  received  7s.  weekly  and  on  death 
of  the  deceased  I  to  keep  &  clothe  trie  boy  which  is  equal  to  13s.  weekly.  So 
I  should  only  gain  28s.  weekly  by  the  death  of  the  deceased.  Surely  an  insufficient 
motive  for  one  in  my  circumstances  in  life,  &  to  take  such  a  risk  as  to  administer 
poison  under  the  nose  of  Doctor  attending  every  day  &  he  even  testing  the  vomit 
&  motion  of  deceased.  It  was  in  every  way  to  my  advantage  for  the  deceased 
to  have  lived  at  least  several  years. 


420 


777? 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITV 


A     000  91 1  883     7 


